Original power of attorney via fax in industrial property proceedingsPresentación de poder original vía fax en trámites de propiedad industrial

TRIBUNAL PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Address 2637 : 2545-00-03 Fax: 2545-00-33 Email ...01 FILE:

PROCEEDING: KNOWLEDGE PLAINTIFF: Name136138 DEFENDANT: THE STATE AND THE JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL RESOLUTION No. 109-2019-VI TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA - SIXTH SECTION- SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at ten hours twenty-five minutes on the thirtieth of August, two thousand nineteen.- Proceso de conocimiento contencioso administrativo y civil de hacienda filed by Name136138, holder of identity card number CED108078, represented by Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact (provided with the brief received via fax on May 18, 2016), against THE STATE, represented by the attorney Alejandro Arce Oses (appearance received on July 29, 2016) and the JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL, represented by Name82113, in his capacity as Deputy Director General of the Registro Nacional, and Name20087, Name1846, Name116122, and Name2405, all in their capacity as special judicial attorneys-in-fact (see standing and brief uploaded to the electronic judicial file on the twenty-sixth of August, two thousand nineteen).-

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS, DELIBERATION, AND VOTE.- As of last October 8th, Law No. 9342 came into force, corresponding to the total reform of the Código Procesal Civil, which in turn is the normative body that regulates the formalities of jurisdictional resolutions. Therefore, this ruling is adapted to the new legal provisions, as observed in Transitional Provision I of said Law and in accordance with Article 2.18 of Corte Plena circular number 96-2018 "Normas Prácticas para la Aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Civil", adopted in article XII of session number 38-18 of August 13, 2018. Likewise, the parties are informed that because the proceeding being resolved was partially processed digitally, it is recorded that the case file also complies with the provisions of the regulation on the Expediente Judicial Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by Corte Plena in article XXXI of session No. 22-13, held on May 20, 2013. Pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of said Regulation, it is clarified that if a folio number or image of any document belonging to the judicial file is cited, it refers to physical or scanned folios prior to the implementation of the electronic file in the Office. To refer to documents entered after that time, only their filing or production date will be indicated. Likewise, and in accordance with the principle of functional equivalence established in section 11 of that Regulation, the parties are informed that the use of digital extracts from digitized documents provided by the parties to the judicial file is legally sound, since according to that provision, “…they have the same probative force as the originals…”. Finally, it is recorded that this resolution is issued after the respective deliberation has been conducted, with the opinion drafting was the responsibility of the reporting judge, Judge Aguilar Méndez, with the concurring opinion and vote of the judges Abarca Gómez and Garita Navarro. Judge Abarca Gómez dissents and Judge Aguilar Méndez files a note.- II.- PRELIMINARY.- This Chamber considers it appropriate to make a few brief clarifications about the evidence admitted to the case file. First, indicate that the information regarding the evidence admitted from the plaintiff was incorrectly recorded in the preliminary hearing minutes, since upon listening to the recording, it is appreciated that the party clearly stated that the documents she contributed at the time with the complaint were contained in the certified copy of the administrative file: “…indeed, the evidence we present is eminently documentary evidence, we have no testimonial evidence and, as a matter of fact, the documentary evidence is also not contested and is contained in the digital file that the defendant party presented…” (listen starting at minute 07:10 to 07:24 of the hearing recording; emphasis is not from the original). Consequently, there is no evidence in the case file that must be assessed by this Court outside of the administrative files, except regarding the administrative resolution from the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015, and its notification, which are not contained in administrative file 2014-007735. Also, it is worth clarifying that as heard from the hearing recording and corroborated in the electronic judicial file, the certified copy of the administrative files corresponds only to two digital files in Acrobat Reader format named: “2014-7734.pdf” and “2014-7735.pdf”, since although they appear contributed on various occasions, they are the same digital files.- III.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.- In the specific case, and as was determined during the preliminary hearing of this matter held on August 9, 2017, the claims filed by the plaintiff consist of the following: “…PETITION: 1. Declare the absolute nullity of the resolution at 14:48:10 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution at 10:25:09 on 9/24/2015; as well as the absolute nullity of the resolution at 14:16:50 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution at 11:01:21 on 9/24/2015; all of them from the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial. 2. Order THE DEFENDANT to hear and respond to the RECURSOS DE REVOCATORIA CON APELACIÓN EN SUBSIDIO, filed by this representation, regarding the resolution at 15:31:36 on 06/25/2015; and regarding the resolution at 10:27:47 on 06/11/2015; both from the REGISTRO DE PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL, so that the corresponding trademark registration process continues. 3. I request that the defendant be ordered to pay […] both costs, and subsidiarily, should your authority consider that I am not in the right in this complaint, I request to be exonerated from the payment of costs due to the good faith of this process…”. The plaintiff, in general terms, states in her complaint that the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial's decision to require the submission of a special administrative power of attorney in physical or original form during the administrative procedure for two trademark registration applications is contrary to the legal order. She argues two reasons for this: on one hand, that there is no legal norm that supports the requirement and, therefore, it becomes unreasonable and arbitrary; and on the other, that according to Article 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, the copy of the power of attorney transmitted via fax constitutes a document functionally equivalent to the original, making the Administration's requirement an unnecessary burden for the citizen, by forcing them to duplicate the procedure, which she deems a violation of the Ley de Simplificación de Trámites. - The State and the Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional respond negatively and both raise the substantive defense of lack of right, thus requesting that the action be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs and the interest they generate. Both representations argue the same points, consisting, first, that the articles cited by the plaintiff do not justify the telematic transmission of documents whose presentation is indispensable in a specific condition within the process, such as the determination of procedural capacity, under the protection of pronouncements from the Tribunal Registral Administrativo, Article 103 of the Código Procesal Civil, and Article 12 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judicial, the latter referring exclusively to briefs. They consider that in this sense, the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial was obliged to verify, through a suitable document, whether Mr. Vargas Solano was or was not authorized to act in the process and whether he had sufficient capacity to file the appeals presented, so that in the absence of accreditation, the appropriate action was to reject the proceeding. Second, they argue that Articles 9 and 13 of the Ley de Marcas and Article 54 subsection a) of its Regulation establish the mandatory nature of presenting the corresponding power of attorney and the Administration's authority to prevent this, issue the corresponding resolutions, and require the interested parties to provide additional documents necessary to resolve. Finally, they consider that Article 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos is inapplicable, as we are not facing a document of that nature, nor any of the situations regulated therein.- IV.- PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated according to sound rational criticism, either because they emerge from the body of evidence contributed and admitted in this proceeding, or because the parties have accepted them:

Facts related to the distinctive sign registration proceeding with administrative file number 2014-0007734 1) On September 8, 2014, Mrs. Name136138 filed an application before the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial of the Registro Nacional for registration of the trademark "S&S VLCM Clothing", under administrative file number 2014-007734. In the application, she indicated fax number 2669-1452 as the means for receiving notifications (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 2) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the application filed by the plaintiff here was presented by Mr. Name111676, representing the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 17 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 3) On January 30, 2015, Mrs. Name136138 responded to the opposition that had been filed and indicated as her primary means for receiving notifications the email address: “...3905” and, alternatively, fax number 2237-6896 (f. 116 to 124 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 4) By administrative resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial at 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, it was ordered, insofar as relevant: “…II. The opposition filed by the attorney-in-fact of Name136139, Inc., against the application for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, filed by Name136138, personally, is hereby dismissed, and the application is hereby granted…”. This resolution was notified to the plaintiff here at fax number 2669-1452, on May 22, 2015 (f. 125 to 139 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 5) On May 28, 2015, the representative of the company Volcom, Inc. filed a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio against the Registro de Propiedad Industrial's resolution at 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, cited above (f. 168 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 6) In administrative resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial at 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015, it was ordered, insofar as relevant: "...I. To grant the recurso de revocatoria filed by Name111676, attorney-in-fact for Volcom Inc., against the resolution issued by this body at 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, which is hereby revoked, and the opposition filed by the attorney-in-fact for Volcom, Inc., against the application for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, filed by Name136138, personally, is hereby granted, and the application is hereby rejected...". This resolution was notified to Mrs. Name136138 on Friday, July 24, 2015 (f. 227 to 234 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 7) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Name136138 proceeded to file via fax a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio against the administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015. Said proceeding was carried out through a special administrative attorney-in-fact, the lawyer Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, who indicated fax 2572-1360 as the means for receiving notifications. In that act, the lawyer Vargas Solano also proceeded to send a copy of his special power of attorney, which can be seen in the following digital extract: ---------- (f. 245 to 258 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 8) By means of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial's administrative resolution at 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, the applicant was ordered to preventively, within ten business days "...counted from the business day following this notification, provide the original of the power of attorney authorizing him to act within this file. Be advised that failure to comply with this requirement will result in the rejection of the recurso de revocatoria con apelación, due to lack of procedural capacity...". This act was attempted to be notified to Mrs. Name136138 in five attempts, three carried out on August 14 and two on August 17, both dates in 2015, to fax number 2572-1360, with unsuccessful results in all of them: "Busy / No Answer" (f. 259 to 267 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 9) By administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: "...Based on the foregoing and cited legal references, IT IS RESOLVED: To reject as inadmissible the Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio filed, against the resolution at 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, attorney-in-fact for Name136138, in the file for the application for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, in class 25..." (Emphasis is not from the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (f. 271 to 276 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 10) By means of a brief with no legible receipt stamp, nor date of preparation or signature, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, as special administrative attorney-in-fact for Name136138, filed a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio and a concomitant incidente de nulidad regarding the resolution at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered fax number 2573-4350 as the means of notification, and alternatively, email ...3906 (f. 283 to 286 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 11) With a receipt date of October 13, 2015, the lawyer Vargas Solano physically attached a special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Mrs. Name136138 (f. 287 to 288 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 12) In administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015, the recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio and the concomitant incidente de nulidad that had been filed were dismissed. This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (f. 290 to 293 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); Facts related to the distinctive sign registration proceeding with administrative file number 2014-0007735 13) On September 8, 2014, Mrs. Name136138 filed an application before the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial of the Registro Nacional for registration of the trademark "Volsurf & Comskate", under administrative file number 2014-007735. There, she indicated fax number 2669-1452 as the means for receiving notifications (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 14) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the application of the plaintiff here was presented by Mr. Name111676, representing the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 35 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 15) On February 5, 2015, Mrs. Name136138 responded to the opposition that had been filed and indicated as her primary means for receiving notifications in both proceedings, the email address: “...3905” and, alternatively, fax number 2237-6896 (f. 82 to 91 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 16) By administrative resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015, it was ordered, insofar as relevant: “…II. The opposition filed by the attorney-in-fact of VOLCOM, INC., against the application for registration of the trademark "Volsurf & Comskate", filed by Name136138, personally, is hereby granted, and the application is hereby rejected…”. This resolution was notified to the plaintiff here on two different occasions: first, to fax number 2669-1452, on June 19, 2015, and later, on Friday, July 24, 2015, without the means by which the communication was made being recorded in this case, as seen in the following notification record:----- (f. 92 to 103, 125 and 126 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 17) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Name136138 proceeded to file via fax a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio against the administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015. Said proceeding was carried out through a special administrative attorney-in-fact, the lawyer Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, and she indicated fax 2572-1360 as the means for receiving notifications, and additionally requested "...also that I be notified by text message of the existence of notifications to cell phone 88-13-55-89...". In that act, the lawyer Vargas Solano also proceeded to send a copy of his special power of attorney (f. 127 to 138 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 18) By means of administrative resolution at 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial ordered the applicant to preventively submit the original of the special power of attorney within ten business days (uncontested fact and f. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 19) By administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: "...Based on the foregoing and cited legal references, IT IS RESOLVED: To reject as inadmissible the Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio filed, against the resolution at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, attorney-in-fact for Name136138, in the file for the application for registration of the trademark "Volsurf & Comskate", in class 25..." (Emphasis is not from the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (f. 139 to 144 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 20) By means of a brief received on October 6, 2015, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, as special administrative attorney-in-fact for Name136138, filed a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio and a concomitant incidente de nulidad regarding the resolution at 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered fax number 2573-4350 as the means of notification, and alternatively, email ...3906 (f. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 21) With a receipt date of October 13, 2015, the lawyer Vargas Solano physically attached a special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Mrs. Name136138 (f. 166 and 167 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); and 22) In administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015, the recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio and the concomitant incidente de nulidad that had been filed were dismissed. This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (Uncontested fact and documents contributed with the complaint and admitted during the preliminary hearing).- V.- UNPROVEN FACTS.- Useful for this ruling, the following facts are considered not proven, either because the parties failed to meet their evidentiary burdens, or because the Court did not find suitable evidence that, in light of sound criticism, would allow them to be accredited: 1.- The notification of the administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial at 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, adopted within administrative file 2014-007735.- 2.- The existence of substantiated doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the special administrative power of attorney sent by fax to administrative files No. 2014-007735 and 2014-007735, corresponding to the trademark registration applications of the plaintiff here.- VI.- ON THE MERITS.- Having seen and analyzed the arguments used by the parties in this matter, this Court considers that the plaintiff is correct, specifically, regarding the restrictions that Administrations have in terms of simplification and rationalization of administrative procedures (simplificación y racionalización de los trámites administrativos), since, as indeed cited by the plaintiff and as will be explained below, the requirements for administrative petitions are governed by a principle of exhaustiveness, rationality, and simplicity, in addition to other procedural principles that give priority to the substantiality of the proceeding, such as informality and in dubio pro actione, all of which lead, as we shall see, to the Administration having to channel administrative procedures toward their due and prompt resolution in an effective, efficient, simple, continuous manner adapted to the needs of the service, giving prevalence to the analysis of the merits of the proceedings, so that inadmissibility on formal grounds can only take place insofar as it deals solely and exclusively with prerequisites that are indispensable to verify. The Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP) accounts for this orientation in its sections 4, 223, 224, and 269.1, as well as the doctrine that permeates Law No. 8220 of March 4, 2002, Ley Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos. In the first place, constitutional jurisprudence has been clear and concise in developing, primarily from Article 4 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, a series of principles of constitutional rank that must characterize administrative functioning, particularly regarding so-called bureaucratic procedures (trámites burocráticos): “III.- CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY, AND SPEED OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION. The Constitución Política, in its organic part, collects or enunciates some guiding principles of administrative function and organization, which as such must guide, direct, and condition all public administrations in their daily work. Among such principles, effectiveness, efficiency, simplicity, and speed stand out (articles –all of the Constitución Política- 140, subsection 8, insofar as it imposes on the Poder Ejecutivo the duty to “Oversee the proper functioning of administrative services and dependencies”, 139, subsection 4, insofar as it incorporates the concept of “good Government operation”, and 191, by collecting the principle of “efficiency of the administration”). These principles of constitutional order have been developed by infra-constitutional legislation, thus, the Ley General de la Administración Pública collects them in Articles 4°, 225, paragraph 1°, and 269, paragraph 1°, and mandates that they must guide and nourish all administrative organization and function. Effectiveness as a principle implies that administrative organization and function must be designed and conceived to guarantee the achievement of the objectives, purposes, and goals proposed and assigned by the legal order itself, with which it must be linked to planning and evaluation or accountability (Article 11, paragraph 2°, of the Constitución Política). Efficiency implies obtaining the best results with the greatest cost savings or the rational use of human, material, technological, and financial resources. Simplicity demands that administrative structures and their competencies be easy to comprehend and understand, without convoluted procedures that delay the satisfaction of the public interests entrusted. For its part, speed obligates public administrations to fulfill their objectives and purposes of satisfying public interests, through the various mechanisms, in the most expeditious, rapid, and accurate manner possible to avoid undue delays. This set of principles imposes permanent requirements, responsibilities, and duties on all public entities that cannot decline on a transitory or singular basis […] Thus, when the Public Administration performs its function and processes matters of interest to the citizens, it must refrain from demanding excessive requirements from citizens, especially when these lack normative support, which hinder procedures and harm the fundamental rights of citizens…” (Emphasis is not from the original. See ruling No. 2007-15849 at 17:59 hours on October 31, 2007. In the same sense: 2003-11382 at 15:11 hours on October 7, 2003, 2005-05600 at 16:34 hours on May 10, 2005, 2012-06859 at 15:32 hours on May 23, 2012, 2015-04295 at 09:30 hours on March 27, 2015, and 2017-07259 at 09:45 hours on May 19, 2017, among others). Now, the universe of administrative authorizations, permits, or petitions of diverse nature that has practical relevance in people's lives in their relationship with public institutions or entities, has come to be known colloquially in our environment as "trámites administrativos", "tramitología", or bureaucracy; and it is precisely in that sector of administrative functioning where the application of these constitutional principles has greatest transcendence. Thus, through the Ley Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos, the legislator has attempted to link constitutional jurisprudence with the daily work of the Administrations, establishing a series of limits on them regarding the management of these procedures and, at the same time, granting a series of procedural rights to the Citizens, all of which together aims to provide people with certainty regarding what and to what extent public institutions can demand from them in attending to their requests, in the form of requirements and their qualification. Within the articles of this law, and of importance for the resolution of this matter, it is worth transcribing the following: “…Article 2 – Single presentation of documents.

Information provided by an individual to a Public Administration entity, body, or official may not be requested again by them, for that same procedure or another within that same entity or body. Likewise, no public entity, body, or official may request from the individual information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess. […] Article 4.- Publicity of procedures and subjection to the law. Every procedure or requirement, regardless of its normative source, in order to be demanded of the individual must: a) Be set forth in a law, an executive decree, or a regulation. b) Be published in the official gazette La Gaceta together with the procedure to be followed, the instructions, manuals, forms, and other corresponding documents and be located in a visible place within the institution. Likewise, a notice referring to said publication must be published in a newspaper of national circulation. Without prejudice to the foregoing, said procedures or requirements may be disseminated through electronic means. The citizen information office of the institutions shall be responsible for explaining to the user the requirements and the procedure for granting applications, permits, licenses, or authorizations. If it does not have such an office, the institution must designate a department or a person for this purpose…” (Highlighting is not from the original). This preamble is of utmost importance, as the Administration, specifically, the Industrial Property Registry has based its defense on the essential nature of a requirement in an administrative procedure. Therefore, did the presentation of the original of the special administrative power of attorney constitute an indispensable requirement in the trademark registration procedures of Mrs. Nombre136138? For this Tribunal, the answer is negative, particularly considering that the power of attorney had already been submitted and received by the Industrial Property Registry through telematic means (see proven facts No. 11 and 21) and given that neither the Administration, nor the administrative counterpart: the company Volcom, Inc., which opposed the registration of the trademarks and was represented by its attorney-in-fact, Mr. Nombre111676, had questioned either the authenticity or the integrity of the document. The respondent Administrations have alleged in the process that the Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos and its Executive Decree establish that the presentation of the original power of attorney is a requirement of the administrative procedure and consequently, the rejection for non-compliance with it is in accordance with the Law. In this regard, the articles cited by the respondents state: Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos, Law No. 7978 of January 6, 2000: "...Article 9- Application for registration. The application for registration of a trademark shall be filed before the Industrial Property Registry and shall contain the following: a) Name and address of the applicant. b) Place of incorporation and domicile of the applicant, when it is a legal entity. c) Name of the legal representative, where applicable. d) Name and address of the attorney-in-fact in the country, when the applicant has no real and effective domicile or commercial establishment in the country. e) The trademark whose registration is requested, when it is a denominative mark without special graphic style, form, or color. f) A reproduction of the trademark in the number of copies determined by the regulation of this law, when it concerns denominative marks with special graphic style, form, or color, or figurative, mixed, or three-dimensional marks with or without color. g) A translation of the trademark, when it is constituted by some denominative element with meaning in a language other than Spanish. h) A list of the names of the products or services for which the trademark is used or will be used, grouped by classes according to the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services, with the indication of the class number. i) The documents or authorizations required in the cases provided for in subsections m), n), and p) of article 7 and subsections f) and g) of article 8 of this law, when pertinent. j) Proof of payment of the established fee. Applicants may process matters before the Registry, by themselves, with the assistance of a lawyer and notary, or through a representative. When a representative processes matters, they must present the corresponding power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements of article 82 bis of this Law. If said power of attorney is on file with the Industrial Property Registry, the trademark file, the name of the trademark, and the application or registration number where it is located must be indicated; the representative may act to the extent permitted by the powers originally authorized. When the applicant wishes to claim the priority of a prior application, they shall file the declaration of priority and the documents referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs of article 5 of this law, with the registration application and within the established timeframes. The declaration of priority shall contain the following data: a) The name of the country or regional office where the priority application was filed. b) The filing date of the priority application. c) The number of the priority application, if one has been assigned. [...] Article 13- Formal examination. The Industrial Property Registry shall examine whether the application complies with the provisions of article 9 of this law and the corresponding regulatory provisions, for which it shall have a period of fifteen business days counted from the date of receipt of the application. If any of the requirements mentioned in article 9 of this law or the corresponding regulatory provisions have not been met, the Registry shall notify the applicant to correct the error or omission within a period of fifteen business days from the corresponding notification, under penalty of the application being considered abandoned..." (Highlighting is not from the original). Regulation of the Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos, Executive Decree No. 30233-J of February 20, 2002: "...Article 54.- Functions of the Director. The Director of the Industrial Property Registry, or the official who legally substitutes him, shall be in charge of the following functions: a) Issue the corresponding resolutions in matters submitted for his consideration and require from interested parties the additional documents he deems necessary for resolution..." (Highlighting is not from the original). As can be appreciated from the norms in question, the respondent Administrations are correct in that the presentation of a power of attorney is a requirement for the individual requesting the registration of a trademark, when acting through an attorney-in-fact, but none of these norms require the presentation of the original document in its physical version, although article 9 of the Ley de Marcas does refer, regarding the formal requirements of the power of attorney, to numeral 82 bis of that same normative body, which states the following: “Article 82 bis.- Power of attorney for intellectual property. To act in the name of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property, authorization from the principal, in an authenticated mandate, must be counted on as a minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required. When the power of attorney is executed abroad, it may be formalized according to the internal law of the country where it is granted, and must be authenticated. Unless otherwise provided, every representative shall be understood to be authorized, sufficient, and competent to perform all the acts that the laws authorize the holder of the corresponding intellectual or industrial property rights to perform, before any authority, office, or public registry, for the application, registration, renewal, transfer, licensing, and other applicable transactions, the conservation, or the defense of their rights, both in administrative and judicial venues, in all their instances and incidents…” (Highlighting is not from the original). Again, this norm does not establish the obligation to present the physical or original document of the special administrative power of attorney of an applicant; on the contrary, the minimum formality required is authentication. Therefore, and following the constitutional guidelines developed through Law No. 8220, we must next confront against these general principles, those grounds that would have been given by the Administration in the administrative procedure of the appeal filed within the trademark registration procedures, namely, specifically, in the administrative resolutions of 14:48:10 hours (administrative file No. 2014-007734 – proven fact 8) and of 14:16:50 hours (administrative file No. 2014-007735 – proven fact 18), both of August 12, 2015. Given that both concern the same warning, we will proceed to analyze the warning made in the first of these, which expressly indicates the following: “…Procedural Standing: According to the records of the case file, the appearance as attorney-in-fact of Mr. Roy L. Vargas Solano is presented at the appeal stage; therefore, the appellant must provide an original special power of attorney, since the one presented is a simple copy sent by fax: which is not admissible in this case according to the Administrative Registry Tribunal: In the specific case, due to the failure to accredit proper procedural standing by Mr. […] because he failed to comply with the warnings made by this Tribunal to attach to the present file the original or certified copy of the power of attorney appearing on folio 89, which was submitted to the records via fax, to accredit his procedural standing to intervene in the process, representing the company […] since said power of attorney is a simple copy and in accordance with the supplementary regulations that this Tribunal applies on this topic, namely article 12 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales No. Placa742, it refers only to the filing of briefs via fax and other similar means, but not to other types of documents whose originals or certification thereof are essential to demonstrate a certain situation or condition, that is, in this case, the standing of Mr. […] to act representing the company […] in its capacity as appellant in this matter, through a suitable power of attorney document, which is why his action and request, made before the Registry and this Tribunal, are improper, since ultimately a suitable document accrediting his representation is not in the record…” (Highlighting is not from the original). As we see, the opinion of the Industrial Property Registry is exclusively based on the opinion of a non-hierarchical oversight body, which interprets that the document relating to a power of attorney submitted via fax constitutes a simple copy and that due to this condition or characteristic, it loses all suitability to accredit representation, which in turn is an essential requirement in the administrative procedure. For the majority of this Tribunal, that reasoning is erroneous, because such a requirement in effect lacks normative and factual support, and therefore, is unreasonable. First, we must remember that an administrative procedure is one of the many forms of exercising the administrative function, so the supplementary application of jurisdictional procedural regulations, in accordance with numerals 9 and 13 LGAP, is only legitimate if there is no administrative normative source, written or unwritten, since as we saw previously, the Law for the Protection of the Citizen from Excess Administrative Requirements and Procedures and the principles of public service, oblige administrative functioning to be simple, efficient, and expeditious, for which the requirement in question must be provided for in a Law or Regulation and once the information has been submitted, it “…may not be requested again by them, for that same procedure or another within that same entity or body…”. On this point, the executive regulation to this law, Executive Decree No. 37045-MP-MEIC of February 22, 2012, provides: “…Article 29º-Request for information. For their part, the bodies and entities of the Public Administration subject to the application of this regulation may not demand from citizens additional documents beyond those expressly indicated in a law, executive decree, or regulation for a specific procedure. The citizen must submit only once the information that the Public Administration requires for the resolution of their procedure. The Administration may not request that they renew or resubmit them if the generating event of the document has not changed, except in cases where, at the time of initiating the procedure, any of the documents has expired and its update is necessary for the resolution of the procedure. In exceptional cases and when the regulatory provisions so establish, the Public Administration entity or body has the power to request extensions or additional clarifications of the documents already provided in the application by the citizen. Said request shall be made in writing, with reasons provided, and only once. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such power must be used restrictively, exceptionally, and when the additional document is essential for the resolution of the procedure…” (Highlighting is not from the original). As can be observed from the transcription of the Industrial Property Registry resolution, the only reason to support the administrative decision lies in the fact that the document is a simple copy sent by fax, without any questioning of the integrity or authenticity of the document existing in the meantime. In the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, the individual effectively delivered the information required by the norm, which is the accreditation of the mandate that empowered Mr. Vargas Solano, in the terms of article 87 bis of the Ley de Marcas, to defend the petitioner's rights in all instances of the administrative venue. In this sense, the basis used by the respondent Administration to justify its action in the opinions of the Administrative Registry Tribunal is not sufficient to override the imposition of the legal norm, particularly that upheld by Law No. 8220 and its regulation, such that for the majority of this Chamber, the warning for original documentation could only be reasonable insofar as, through a duly reasoned act and in order to guarantee legal certainty and security, the Administration expressed concrete and founded doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the document that had been transmitted by electronic or telematic means, and not as in the present case, due to the fact that it constitutes a simple copy of the document. Furthermore, note that article 12 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales -which is the norm used in the Administrative Registry Tribunal's opinions-, does not obligate the presentation of documentation in physical form, but rather regulates the possibility for parties in a judicial process to send information by telematic means or other technological systems that the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial enables for these purposes, as currently occurs with the electronic judicial file system or “Gestión en Línea”. The numeral under comment states: “..Article 12.- Reply and response to notifications. Those intervening in a process may carry out procedures before the court, through electronic, informatic, telematic, or other similar means, that allow the sending of the communication and its normal reception, in such a way that its authenticity is guaranteed, in the manner determined by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial. The electronic, informatic, telematic, or other similar means must be accessible to screen readers for the blind…” (Highlighted). As can be observed, only in those cases where the authenticity of the information cannot be guaranteed can information not transmitted by telematic means then be considered invalid. Thus, this Tribunal considers that in reality there was no certain or legal reason for the Industrial Property Registry to be able to demand the presentation of the physical document of the special administrative power of attorney as a requirement to accredit the representation of Mrs. Nombre136138, as the copy already sent via fax was sufficient for this, and the consideration that merely because it was a physical copy, it was unsuitable for the purpose, is improper. To all this, we must add that as has been demonstrated in proven facts No. 11 and 21, the original power of attorney was subsequently presented and received by the Industrial Property Registry, meaning we are in the presence of the requirement for a formality for formality's sake, contrary to all that has been cited, but especially, to article 223 LGAP: "...Only the omission of substantial procedural formalities shall cause nullity of the proceedings...". Thus, without founded reason to doubt the authenticity or integrity of the document sent via fax, the majority of the Tribunal considers that the Administration's provisions to demand the presentation of such physical document as a requirement, and subsequently, the rejection of the appeals and the registration process resulting from the failure to comply with that requirement, then became an unnecessary measure and, in that manner, unreasonable and disproportionate under the provisions previously seen. Ergo, the administrative acts by which an end was put to those administrative processes become substantially non-compliant with the administrative legal order for lacking grounds, that is, because the factual and legal antecedents that allow exercising competence for the specific case are missing, such that the action of the Public Administration is impeded, as there would be no legitimate cause for the exercise of the administrative function by its agents. On the other hand, it is worth clarifying that since this Tribunal does not question the need to accredit representation and since it is also not relevant whether the document in question has the character of an electronic document or not, it is possible to dispense with the arguments related to the application to the specific case of articles 103 of the Código Procesal Civil and 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, which are not pertinent, nor do they affect the conclusion that in fact, the Administration acts contrary to the Law by demanding compliance with a requirement that the plaintiff herein had already adequately satisfied in the procedure carried out before that Department, or at least, without there being a founded opposition beyond its mere character as a simple copy. Consequently, and by virtue of all that has been said, the lawsuit must be granted in all its terms, declaring the nullity of the administrative acts of both procedures, by which the requirement for the original document of the special administrative power of attorney was warned, as well as of the final acts by which the rejection of the administrative appeals filed was ordered, such that the Industrial Property Registry must issue a new ruling on these as appropriate in Law and within the legal deadlines, through due communication of the respective act to the notification means existing in the administrative files. Finally, it is worth clarifying that with this ruling, the Section is not ruling on the substance of the administrative process, since the object of the nullity declared herein lies in the acts by which the consideration of the administrative appeals filed against the final acts of both trademark registration procedures is rejected, and it now falls to the Administration for their adequate resolution in that venue.- VII.- ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED.- Since both the State and the Administrative Board of the National Registry limited their arguments to the objection of lack of right and given that, as set forth in this pronouncement, the annulment claim brought by the plaintiff has found legal basis and must be granted as has indeed been ordered, what corresponds then is to deny the defense raised by the respondent Administrations, as it proves improper.- VIII.- ON COSTS.- In accordance with articles 193 of the Administrative-Contentious Procedural Code and 73 of the Civil Procedural Code (Law No. 9342), the order to pay costs constitutes an obligation imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, for the benefit of the winning party, in order to reimburse the latter for the various categories of expenses listed therein. Both numerals provide for various grounds for exemption from this order, so in the absence of arguments or evidence that allow this Tribunal, in the present case, to weigh and consider any of these reasons as proven, it is not possible then to exempt the losing party, totally or partially, from the application of said maxim, so in accordance with the cited norms, what is due is to impose the order on the losing party. In supplementary application of the provisions of articles 61.2, 62.1, and 76.1 of the Civil Procedural Code (Law No. 9342), since in this matter the amount of the order is made in the abstract and therefore, pending liquidation in the judgment execution phase, the determination of the amount of the costs shall be carried out in that stage, taking as a basis the total amount of the order, as well as the liquidation and the corresponding evidence that must be provided to the records by the winning party.-.-

THEREFORE:

By majority, THE OBJECTION OF LACK OF RIGHT raised by the respondents IS REJECTED.- Consequently and by majority, THE LAWSUIT filed by Nombre136138 against THE STATE and the ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL REGISTRY IS GRANTED.- The absolute nullity is declared, then, of the following administrative resolutions of the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry: a) In administrative file No. 2014-007734: 1. Resolution of 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, 2. Resolution of 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, and 3. Resolution of 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015; and b) In administrative file No. 2014-007735: 1. Resolution of 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, 2. Resolution of 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015, and 3. Resolution of 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015. Consequently, the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry must issue a new ruling on these administrative appeals as appropriate in Law and within the legal deadlines, through due communication of the respective act to the notification means existing in the administrative files.- The losing party is ordered to pay the full costs and their interests in the terms set forth in Considerando VIII of this judgment.- Judge Abarca Gómez issues a dissenting vote and Judge Aguilar Méndez adds a note.-.- Notify.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Cynthia Abarca Gómez Roberto Garita Navarro NOTE BY JUDGE AGUILAR MÉNDEZ.- Specifically regarding the order to pay costs, while the opinion that it must indeed be imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so is unanimous, with all due respect I differ from my colleagues regarding the abstract or liquid nature of this pronouncement. Given the scarce regulation that the different procedural normative bodies in this matter have had on this point, as was in its time the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa and currently, the Administrative-Contentious Procedural Code, it gave rise to an extended application by supplementarity of the norms of the Civil Procedural Code, precisely as authorized by numerals 220 idem and articles 9 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Consequently, and according to the current wording of article 62.1 of the Civil Procedural Code (Law No. 9342), it constitutes an inescapable duty of the Tribunal to establish in the judgment “…once the exact amount of the granted sums, their adjustments up to the judgment, including interest and costs…” (Highlighting is not from the original). Therefore, and given the lack of a contrary administrative norm, what would be appropriate is to include in the costs section of this judgment, the determination of these latter items, just as the legal order provides, and not reserve its pronouncement for the judgment execution phase.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez, Judge.- Dissenting vote of Judge Abarca Gómez With the customary respect and consideration, I must depart from the decision adopted by the majority of this Tribunal in this process for the following reasons. I.- The majority vote considers, at its core, that none of the norms cited by the respondent parties require the presentation of the original document relating to the special administrative power of attorney that was demanded from the person who filed the appeals on behalf of the plaintiff herein. However, I consider that article 82 bis of the Ley de Marcas does establish it. Said norm states, in what is relevant, "(...) Power of attorney for intellectual property. To act in the name of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property, authorization from the principal, in an authenticated mandate, must be counted on as a minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required. (...)". In my opinion, when the norm states "authenticated mandate", it unavoidably refers to the original document, which is the only one that could be authenticated, since if it were a copy, what would be appropriate would be its certification. Thus, the presentation of the sufficient mandate in original form is indeed a requirement established by law, which is why the warning would not violate any provision of Law No. 8220. In the case at hand, attending to the pro actione principle and in accordance with the provisions of articles 283, 286, and 287 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the respondent Administration warned the plaintiff's alleged lawyer to provide the original of the power of attorney that accredited him to act in the procedure, and he did not comply with what was required. Therefore, I consider that the decision to reject the appeals filed outright is in accordance with the law; which would lead to the declaration that the lawsuit filed herein should be denied, with the corresponding order to pay costs against the plaintiff.

Cynthia Abarca Gómez *0GVT1J0WLNY61* DANIEL AGUILAR MENDEZ, TRIAL JUDGE ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO, TRIAL JUDGE CYNTHIA ABARCA GOMEZ, TRIAL JUDGE ConvertirPDF

** ** **RESOLUCIÓN N° 109-2019-VI** **TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA - SECCIÓN SEXTA- SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at ten twenty-five on the thirtieth of August, two thousand nineteen.-** Ordinary administrative and civil treasury proceeding filed by **Nombre136138**, holder of identity card number CED108078, represented by Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special judicial attorney (provided with the brief received via fax on May 18, 2016), against **EL ESTADO**, represented by the attorney Alejandro Arce Oses (appearance received on July 29, 2016) and the **JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL**, represented by Nombre82113, in his capacity as Deputy General Director of the Registro Nacional and Nombre20087, Nombre1846, Nombre116122 and Nombre2405, all of them in their capacity as special judicial attorneys (see standing and brief uploaded to the electronic judicial file on August twenty-six, two thousand nineteen).- **CONSIDERANDO:** **I.-** **ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES, DELIBERACIÓN Y VOTO.-** As of October 8 of last year, Ley N° 9342 entered into force, corresponding to the complete reform of the Código Procesal Civil, which in turn is the normative body that regulates the formalities of jurisdictional resolutions; therefore, this ruling adapts to the new legal provisions, as observed in Transitory Provision I of said Law and in accordance with Article 2.18 of the Corte Plena circular number 96-2018 "Normas Prácticas para la Aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Civil," adopted in Article XII of session number 38-18 of August 13, 2018. Likewise, the parties are informed that, because the proceedings being resolved were partially processed digitally, it is hereby recorded that the case file also complies with the provisions of the regulation on the Expediente Judicial Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by Corte Plena in Article XXXI of session No. 22-13, held on May 20, 2013. In accordance with numerals 10 and 11 of said Regulation, it is clarified that in the event a folio number or image of any document belonging to the judicial file is cited, it refers to physical or scanned folios prior to the commencement of the electronic file in the Office. To refer to documents submitted after that time, only their presentation or production date will be indicated. Equally, and in accordance with the principle of functional equivalence established in numeral 11 of that Regulation, the parties are informed that the use of digital extracts of digitized documents provided by the parties to the judicial file is in accordance with the Law, since according to that norm *“…they have the same probative force as the originals…”*. Finally, **it is hereby recorded that this resolution is issued once the respective deliberation has been carried out, with the drafting of the vote in charge of the reporting judge, Judge Aguilar Méndez, with the concurring opinion and vote of Judges Abarca Gómez and Garita Navarro. Judge Abarca Gómez dissents and Judge Aguilar Méndez adds a note.-** **II.-** **DE PREVIO.-** This Chamber considers it convenient to make a few brief clarifications regarding the evidence admitted to the case file. In the first place, note that in the minutes of the preliminary hearing, the information on the evidence admitted by the plaintiff was incorrectly recorded, since upon listening to the recording, it is appreciated that in this regard the party clearly stated that the documents they had previously provided with the complaint were contained in the certified copy of the administrative file: *“…indeed, the evidence we present is eminently documentary evidence, we have no testimonial evidence and incidentally, the documentary evidence is not contested and is contained in the digital file that the defendant presented…”* (listen from minute 07:10 to 07:24 of the hearing recording; emphasis is not in the original). Consequently, there is no evidence in the case file that must be assessed by this Tribunal outside the administrative files, except for that relating to the administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial of 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015, and its notification, which are not contained in administrative file 2014-007735. Likewise, it is worth clarifying that as heard in the recording of the hearing and corroborated in the electronic judicial file, the certified copy of the administrative files corresponds only to two digital files in *Acrobat Reader* format named: “2014-7734.pdf” and “2014-7735.pdf”, since although they were provided on several occasions, they are the same digital files.- **III.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO Y ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES.-** In the specific case, and as was determined during the preliminary hearing of this matter held on August 9, 2017, the **claims** filed by the plaintiff consist of the following: *“…PETITORIA: 1. Declare the absolute nullity of the resolution of 14:48:10 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution of 10:25:09 on 9/24/2015; as well as the absolute nullity of the resolution of 14:16:50 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution of 11:01:21 on 9/24/2015; all of them from the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial. 2. Order THE DEFENDANT to hear and respond to the RECURSOS DE REVOCATORIA CON APELACIÓN EN SUBSIDIO, filed by this representation, regarding the resolution of 15:31:36 on 6/25/2015; and regarding the resolution of 10:27:47 on 6/11/2015; both from the REGISTRO DE PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL, so that the corresponding trademark registration process continues. 3. I request that the defendant be ordered to pay* […] *both costs, and subsidiarily, in case your authority considers I am not right in this complaint, I request to be exempted from the payment of costs due to the good faith of this proceeding...”.* The claimant, in general terms, argues in her complaint that the decision of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial to require her, in the administrative process of two trademark registration applications, to provide a special administrative power of attorney in physical or original form is inconsistent with the legal system. She adduces two reasons for this: on one hand, that there is no legal norm supporting the requirement and therefore, it becomes unreasonable and arbitrary; and on the other, that in accordance with Article 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, the copy of the power of attorney transmitted via fax constitutes a document functionally equivalent to the original, making the Administration's requirement an unnecessary burden for the administered party, by forcing her to duplicate the process, which she considers violates the Ley de Simplificación de Trámites. - **El Estado and the Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional** **respond negatively** and both oppose the substantive objection of lack of right, therefore requesting that the action be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs and the interest they generate. Both representations state the same arguments, consisting, first, that the articles cited by the plaintiff do not justify the transmission by telematic means of documents whose presentation is indispensable in a certain condition within the process, such as the determination of procedural capacity, under the protection of pronouncements of the Tribunal Registral Administrativo, Article 103 of the Código Procesal Civil, and Article 12 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judicial, the latter referring exclusively to briefs. They consider that in this sense, the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial was obligated to verify by suitable document whether Mr. Vargas Solano was authorized or not to act in the process and whether he possessed sufficient capacity to file the appeals submitted, so that given the lack of accreditation, the appropriate action was the rejection of the proceeding. Second, they argue that Articles 9 and 13 of the Ley de Marcas and Article 54, subsection a) of its Reglamento establish the mandatory nature of presenting the corresponding power of attorney and the Administration's authority to mandate compliance, issue the corresponding resolutions, and require the interested parties to provide additional documents necessary to resolve. Finally, they consider that Article 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos is inapplicable, because we are not facing a document of that nature, nor any of the scenarios regulated therein.- **IV.- HECHOS PROBADOS**.- Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated according to sound critical reasoning, i.e., they emerge from the body of evidence provided and admitted in this process, or because the parties have accepted them:

***Hechos related to the registration procedure of the distinctive sign with administrative file number 2014-0007734*** 1) On September 8, 2014, Mrs. Nombre136138 submitted to the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial of the Registro Nacional an application for registration of the trademark *"S&S VLCM Clothing"*, under administrative file number 2014-007734. In the application, she designated fax number 2669-1452 as the means for receiving notifications (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 2) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the application filed by the plaintiff here was presented by Mr. Nombre111676 representing the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 17 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 3) On January 30, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 answered the opposition that had been filed and designated email: “...3905” as the primary means for receiving notifications, and subsidiarily fax number 2237-6896 (f. 116 to 124 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 4) By administrative resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial of 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, it was ordered in relevant part: *“…II. The opposition filed by the attorney of Nombre136139, ., against the application for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, presented by Nombre136138, in a personal capacity, is declared without merit, and it is hereby accepted…”.* This resolution was notified to the plaintiff here at fax number 2669-1452, on May 22, 2015 (f. 125 to 139 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 5) On May 28, 2015, the representative of the company Volcom, Inc. filed a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio against the resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial of 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, cited above (f. 168 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 6) In the administrative resolution of the Registro de Propiedad Industrial of 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015, it was ordered in relevant part: *"...I. To grant the recurso de revocatoria filed by Nombre111676, attorney of Volcom Inc., against the resolution issued by this body at 15:12:50 hours on May 18, 2015, which is revoked, and the opposition filed by the attorney of Volcom, Inc., against the application for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, presented by Nombre136138, in a personal capacity, is hereby granted, and it is hereby rejected..."*. This resolution was notified to Mrs. Nombre136138 on Friday, July 24, 2015 (f. 227 to 234 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file “2014-7734.pdf”); 7) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 proceeded to file via fax a recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio against the administrative resolution of the Registro de la Propiedad Industrial of 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015.

He carried out said process through a special administrative representative, the attorney Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, who indicated as a means to receive notifications via fax 2572-1360.

In that act, attorney Vargas Solano also proceeded to submit a copy of his special power of attorney, which can be seen in the following digital excerpt: ----------</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><img src=" La Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante Voto 4654-2003, analizó la relación entre el Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento, y la Ley Forestal, específicamente en lo concerniente a los requisitos para la obtención de permisos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) en terrenos con forest cover (cobertura boscosa).

En su análisis, la Sala señaló que el Anexo 1 y el Anexo 2 de dicho decreto establecen parámetros técnicos que deben ser verificados por instituciones como el MINAE, el SINAC, y la SETENA. Particularmente, el Considerando III del Voto 4654-2003 enfatiza la obligatoriedad de presentar un environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) cuando el proyecto de subdivision (fraccionamiento) implique un land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) que afecte áreas bajo el régimen del Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA).

Asimismo, el Voto 4654-2003 determina que entidades como el INVU y la municipalidad respectiva deben coordinar con el MINAE y la SETENA para asegurar que los permisos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) no contravengan lo dispuesto en la Ley Forestal y el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento. El Por tanto de la resolución ordena la anulación de actos administrativos que hubiesen omitido la consulta obligatoria a estas instituciones técnicas.

The applicant is seeking environmental viability for the project identified as "Reforma Integral para la Legalización de Uso Comercial" (Comprehensive Reform for the Legalization of Commercial Use), located in the district of Santa Cruz, Turrialba, and canton of Turrialba, province of Cartago. The project proposes to formalize an existing commercial use within a property that has a total area of 38,764.88 m² and a current forest cover (cobertura boscosa) of 22,130.71 m², for the operation of a restaurant and a tourist lodge with cabins, which have been in operation since 2013. The project includes the operation of 28 accommodation units (21 cabins and 7 glamping units), a house for the administrator, a restaurant, an events room, a storage warehouse, a laundry facility, a camping and parking area, green zones, and an access road.

The project's initial construction phase generated earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and land-use changes (cambio de uso del suelo) that date back more than 10 years. The land-use capacity analysis determined that the area for the tourism project is located on Class VIII lands, a use that is allowed according to the land-use map of the Turrialba Municipality's Regulatory Plan. The economic activity has been carried out without requiring the cutting or removal of forest cover. The project is completely outside of the Forest Reserve and the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Protection Zone. The project does not require an environmental feasibility study from the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA). According to the site visit conducted by the Turrialba-Cartago Subregional Office (Sede Subregional Turrialba-Cartago) of the Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Central, ACC), the tourist business was already built and operating, with 100% of its infrastructure operational.

The project is located near a river. In the results of the field verification carried out by the Central Conservation Area (ACC), the presence of two springs (nacientes) was identified on the property. However, it was determined that the project has a protection area for these springs, and all existing infrastructure, including the cabins, is located outside of this protection zone, thus complying with Art. 33 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal).

Regarding waste management, the project has a treatment system: gray water receives primary and secondary treatment, and black water receives tertiary treatment. The quality of the discharges complies with the limits established in the Regulation for the Discharge and Reuse of Wastewater (Reglamento de Vertido y Reuso de Aguas Residuales), as verified by laboratory tests. Treated water is used for irrigation of green areas, and the hydration of guests and staff is supplied by the ASADA Guadalupe de Santa Cruz. The management of ordinary waste is handled through the municipality's collection service, while recyclable waste is delivered to a collection center. The environmental management measures to be applied correspond to the corrective Environmental Adjustment Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental, PGA), included as an environmental commitment in Annex 1 (Anexo 1).

Considering the background, the project does not fall within the categories that require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), in accordance with Art. 12 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Environmental Viability Regulations of SETENA, and Art. 19 of the General Regulations on EIA Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA). The environmental diagnostic analysis determines that the viability of the project is, from a technical and legal standpoint, the only completely legal path for environmental adaptation, and therefore, it is recommended to grant environmental viability.

The applicant formalized its environmental commitment to comply with all environmental management measures established in Annexes 1, 2, and 3 of Resolution 2373-2021-SETENA, as well as the technical criteria of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, ACCVC) – ACC and other competent institutions. In compliance with the provisions of Transitory I of the Regulations for the Environmental Viability of SETENA, the company was notified of the technical report.

The expert biologist certifies that the forest within the property does NOT correspond (first use) to an environmental service for the protection of water, since the use class of Water Protection, defined by Resolution No. 2002-6009-SETENA-MINAE, Article 2, states: "On properties where there is at least one spring (naciente), the minimum fixed areas for protection do not apply exclusively in riparian zones. It refers to a use class that shall be applied as an environmental service (pago de servicios ambientales, PSA), in this case, for the protection of water resources (protección del recurso hídrico, PRH), which is derived from the Protection Area defined by Article 33 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal)." The expert biologist certifies:

1. The farm is in use classes of terrain occupation dedicated to silvopastoral systems with scattered trees and pasture without trees. The forest cover (cobertura boscosa) does NOT have continuity with the core area of the Osa Biological Corridor, nor does it connect the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve and the Térraba Sierpe Wetland. Due to its small area, it is an isolated forest patch. Additionally, the property is on the edge of the coastal road. A total of 38 species of forest trees were found in the silvopastoral system, of which 22 are rare species, 15 are occasional species, and 1 is abundant.

The species recorded are the following:

Based on this, the environmental condition of the property shows that it has extensive sectors of grassland (potrero) without trees and others with trees. The existing tree components do not provide environmental services for the benefit of humans. The terrain of this farm is constantly flooded during certain months of the year. Due to its location, accessible from the main road, its location relative to an urban area, and the silvopastoral and grassland productive use, it does not maintain the integrity of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve and the "Térraba Sierpe" Wetland.

Based on the above, it is determined that this property does NOT correspond to Articles 30, 32, 33, and 34 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), since these articles refer to a minimum area to be dedicated as a Forest Area within this protected area (área protegida) for the protection of water resources. The property presents a tree stratum under silvopastoral use and tree cover linked to a biological connectivity route (roadside and river fences or delimitations) and not a forest ecosystem of the very humid tropical forest life zone. Therefore, I withdraw from the Project and it is concluded that: the farm does not correspond to this Protected Wild Area (Área Silvestre Protegida, ASP), so an environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) license is not necessary for the Zoning Plan for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) since there is no environmental service here, as certified.

Section 2 of 2 of the Set of Supplementary Environmental Adjustments and Territorial Regulations for the Cantonal Regulatory Plan of Pérez Zeledón (Plan Regulador Cantonal de Pérez Zeledón), on the lands defined by the cantonal urban development boundary (límite de crecimiento urbano cantonal) and the surrounding regulated cantonal urban perimeter (perímetro urbano cantonal regulado aledaño), according to what is technically established in the Set of Plans [translation of "Juego de Planos"] and [translation of "Reglamento de Fraccionamiento"] subdivision regulations; [translation of "Vialidad"] road network; [translation of "Zonificación"] zoning; [translation of "Reglamento de Construcciones"] building regulations; and [translation of "Reglamento para la tramitación de permisos y la revisión de anteproyectos del Cantón de Pérez Zeledón"] regulations for permit processing and preliminary project review of the Canton of Pérez Zeledón.

Los procesos relativos a las solicitudes de fraccionamiento (subdivision) y urbanización serán presentados a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) como un proyecto de evaluación de impacto ambiental, mediante el formulario denominado D1, conforme las disposiciones del Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo 31849.

SETENA, en uso de las facultades del artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley 7554, y del artículo 17 de su Reglamento General de EIA, analizará integralmente los estudios de impacto ambiental, con el fin de que las actividades de fraccionamiento (subdivision) y urbanización se lleven a cabo con apego al principio de desarrollo sostenible y ordenamiento territorial.

<p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> (f.

245 to 258 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 8) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, the applicant was warned that within a period of ten business days *"...counted from the business day following this notification, she must provide the original of the power of attorney that accredits her to act within this file. It is warned that failure to comply with this requirement will result in the motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación) being rejected due to lack of procedural capacity..."*. This act was attempted to be notified to Ms. Nombre136138 in five attempts, three of them made on August 14 and two on August 17, both dates in 2015, to fax number 2572-1360, with unsuccessful results in all of them: "Busy / No Answer" (f. 259 to 267 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 9) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: *"...Based on the foregoing and cited legal provisions, IT IS RESOLVED:* ***To Reject as inadmissible the Motions for Reversal and Subsidiary Appeal (Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio) filed*** *against the resolution at 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, attorney-in-fact for Nombre136138 . , in the application file for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, in class 25..."* (Highlighting not in the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (f. 271 to 276 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 10) By means of a brief without a legible received stamp, nor a date of preparation or signature, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special administrative attorney-in-fact for Nombre136138, filed a motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal and a concomitant motion to nullify (incidente de nulidad) with respect to the resolution at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered as a means of notification fax number 2573-4350 and, subsidiarily, the email address ...3906 (f. 283 to 286 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 11) With a received date of October 13, 2015, lawyer Vargas Solano physically attached a special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Ms. Nombre136138 (f. 287 to 288 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 12) In an administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015, the motions for reversal with subsidiary appeal and the concomitant motion to nullify that had been filed were declared without merit. This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (f. 290 to 293 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); ***Facts related to the registration procedure for a distinctive sign with administrative case file number 2014-0007735*** 13) On September 8, 2014, Ms. Nombre136138 filed before the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry an application for registration of the trademark "*Volsurf & Comskate*", under administrative case file number 2014-007735. She indicated there, as a means for receiving notifications, fax number 2669-1452 (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 14) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the plaintiff's application was filed by Mr. Nombre111676, representing the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 35 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 15) On February 5, 2015, Ms. Nombre136138 responded to the opposition that had been filed and indicated as the primary means for receiving notifications in both proceedings, the email address: “...3905” and, subsidiarily, fax number 2237-6896 (f. 82 to 91 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 16) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015, it was ordered, in the pertinent part: *“…II. The opposition filed by the attorney-in-fact for VOLCOM, INC., against the application for registration of the trademark* "*Volsurf & Comskate*"*, filed by Nombre136138, in her personal capacity, is declared with merit, and said application is hereby rejected…”.* Esta resolución fue notificada a la aquí actora en dos ocasiones distintas: primero, al fax número 2669-1452, el día 19 de junio de 2015 y posteriormente, el día viernes 24 de julio de 2015, sin que en este caso conste el medio al cual se practicó la comunicación, según se aprecia en la siguiente acta de notificación:----- This resolution was notified to the plaintiff herein on two separate occasions: first, to fax number 2669-1452, on June 19, 2015, and subsequently, on Friday, July 24, 2015, without it being recorded in this instance by what means the communication was made, as can be seen in the following notification record:----- Forest coverage (cobertura boscosa) (Anexo 1) is a restrictive protection measure of the Law, temporary and an environmental technical parameter for forests (bosques). It differs from lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad), a principle of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), absolute and spatial in nature, a direct consequence of the Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA). Article 19 of the Forestry Law defines forest coverage as the "determining factor for the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of any project," and its objective is to "ensure the forest coverage of the land to be used is maintained or restored, a criterion that must be considered in the evaluation of the project." This coverage is cataloged by the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and constitutes a technical parameter that restricts land clearing activities. In contrast, lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad), derived from Decree No. 31849-MINAE, is of a legal nature, immovable and absolute, protecting the entire forest cover area irrespective of its temporary status; prohibiting land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), subdivision (fraccionamiento), and urban or agricultural development in perpetuity.

Considerando III.—De la Ley Forestal, su Reglamento y las regulaciones del Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) se desprende que, para acceder al PSA, es indispensable acreditar la propiedad del inmueble y que el mismo cuente con cobertura boscosa. Asimismo, se requiere la inscripción del contrato de PSA en el Registro Público y la acreditación de la realización de actividades de protección y conservación del bosque. En el caso del PSA por protección de bosque, se exige una lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) de la cobertura boscosa por el plazo del contrato, lo que implica una limitación al derecho de propiedad, pues el propietario se obliga a mantener el bosque y a no realizar land-use changes (cambio de uso del suelo). Esta limitación debe estar debidamente inscrita en el Registro Público para que sea oponible a terceros, tal y como lo establece el Artículo 19 de la Ley Forestal. En consecuencia, la omisión de este requisito registral conlleva la imposibilidad de oponer la limitación a terceros adquirentes del inmueble, lo cual podría generar conflictos en caso de una eventual enajenación del predio, tal y como se indica en el Voto 4654-2003.

III.Article 122, regarding the forest regime, establishes in its Article 13 the obligation of the General Directorate of Forests, Wildlife and Protected Areas (Dirección General de Forestal, Vida Silvestre y Áreas Protegidas) of SINAC-MINAE to object to any activity that involves land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo) in forested land or in areas suitable for forestry located within private properties contributing to the Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA) program. In relation to the specific case, ACOSA has duly complied with the mandate established in the regulations of the PSA program issued by MINAE and the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), consistently and materially stating its objection, within the corresponding administrative procedure, to the elimination of the forest cover (cobertura boscosa) existing in the property, through a pronouncement that has the force of a binding report for SETENA. Consequently, the application of Article 13 of the Forestry Law in this matter by ACOSA and MINAE is legally justified by the presence of the forest declared to the PSA in March 2010, which gave rise to a binding opposition, a resolution that must be understood for all legal purposes as confirmation of the existence of sufficient forest cover and PSA payment areas within the property. The opposition is based on verifying the presence of at least fifty percent forest cover in the specific area, which determines the inapplicability of land-use changes; the declaration of forest to the PSA constitutes valid proof for this purpose.

IV.Regarding the obligation of ACOSA in the specific case to indicate the area of the forest cover existing in the property, in accordance with the map attached to the binding report issued, it is shown that the forest area is determined based on land registry coordinates. Therefore, the objecting party has correctly complied with its obligation under the law and regulations, making the claim inadmissible. The existence of errors in the measurement of these forest areas, as alleged by the appellant, is not sufficiently proven. Consequently, it must be understood that the coordinates registered in the PSA program and the official registry are maintained, especially when the eventual and potential marginal variations that may practically exist, due to the lack of synchronization of the migration from the reference systems of the National Geographic Institute (IGN) to the new CR05 system, have no true capacity to alter the core of the binding environmental decision that determines the existence of significant forest cover, preventing the land-use activities estimated under the D1 permit. In any case, it is determined that the appellant brings a series of arguments regarding his own alleged coordinate measurements at the site, without being exact sciences, which are not sufficient to contradict the official registry of ACOSA-MINAE as the administrator of the PSA program or the National Registry itself.

V.Regarding the claim related to the binding nature of the reports of the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA), stating that the construction of the D1 project is not granted for lack of water availability, this Environmental Administrative Tribunal observes that, under Article 5 of the Regulations of Environmental Viability (Reglamento de Viabilidad Ambiental) and for the specific case, it is the ASADA (or provider of the drinking water service) who must issue a certification of water availability that confirms the existence of the respective connection and defines the operational conditions, which in the municipality of Acosta corresponds to the aqueduct administered by the ASADA and/or the municipality, but not specifically to AyA. Under this same line of reasoning, the pronouncement of SENARA, in its literal condition, fundamentally states that the specified well must comply with the criteria for the location and construction of works issued by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA), indicating that it is the ASADA that must guarantee water quality and quantity conditions. Therefore, this binding report should not be considered as an impediment to the viability of the license, as alleged by the appellant, since, under the special technical regulations of the matter, the binding nature is met by the ASADA or its equivalent form for the area, by acting as the direct manager of the water resource. Based on the foregoing, and considering the technical studies of water availability for the Edén, Tablazo and La Pampa de Acosta aqueduct included in the administrative file, as well as the existence of fifteen springs (nacientes) within the property and the fact that the granting of the D1 construction license does not grant the right to immediately connect to a public or communal drinking water system without first complying with the applicable connection requirements of the providing entity (ASADA), this Tribunal rejects the claim.

VI.Article 47 of the Regulations for National Subdivision and Urbanization (Reglamento para el Fraccionamiento y Urbanización Nacional), Decree N° 31849-MINAE, establishes the determination of public areas when the D1 - Subdivision (fraccionamiento) for urbanization is managed, as indicated in Considerando III of this resolution, which for the specific case of an agricultural D1 classification are not applicable, so the discussion regarding the alleged right to a public area or green space is abstract, with this being applicable only to normal urban development zones. The D1 viability being processed corresponds to an agricultural activity subdivision located outside urban planning areas and the GAM regulatory plan, meaning it is outside INVU's planning powers, making the claim inadmissible.

VII.Finally, regarding the grounds invoked regarding the violation of the law, specifically the illegality of the denial of hearing, this is disregarded when the file proves the existence of the corresponding publication in the official newspaper, with the appellant having exercised this right extensively without any sign of defenselessness, with all the necessary procedural guarantees fully safeguarded. The appellant's other claims essentially resolve on their own against the binding reports of ACOSA-MINAE and the ASADA, which are what fundamentally determines the denial of environmental viability; thus, holding an oral hearing would not change the final outcome, given the non-existence of water availability is sufficiently proven and, above all, the existence of forest cover and areas dedicated to the PSA program is proven, with the binding report of ACOSA being firm, preventing the so-called land-use changes, and consequently, the D1 license, from proceeding.

Surface area: 10323.94 m²

Surface area: 13616.98 m² A total of twenty-nine places were documented as springs (nacientes) or permanent water bodies with a hydraulic outlet, six of which are permanent springs (nacientes perpetuas) situated in forested areas with a year-round flow, and the other streams over the course of a month without precipitation all ceased to flow. The Forest Engineer confirmed the existence of a spring (naciente) located on the Prendas Segura property (leaf 2209), which was located within the protected area of the PSAH contract, but which was neither a permanent spring (naciente perpetua) as claimed by the neighbor nor did it present year-round flow. The Engineer who visited the property explained that the flow recorded in the technical report of November (leaf 2249) had its origin in a different spring (naciente), adding that the spring (naciente) of Prendas Segura only flows when it rains; and even though in the same declaration he states that it had been a year and a half since he visited (leaf 2596), the property study of 2009 undertaken by him classifies the spring (naciente) of Prendas Segura as Type I (leaf 2208), so despite the fact that his statement that the spring (naciente) of Prendas Segura is recharge-dependent could be accepted, it is not possible to discard its permanent or non-permanent character based solely on his oral statement in that respect, in the absence of the corresponding flow-measurement reports and their relation to the precipitation regime that had actually occurred. The streams and permanent springs (nacientes perpetuas) on the property do not drain into the Prendas Segura spring (naciente), as evidenced by the document at leaf 1484, which constitutes the only document that individually analyzes each basin; indeed, at leaf 2208, the permanent springs (nacientes perpetuas) and intermittent streams described are located in other drainage basins, being totally discharged by the neighbor’s water catchment, before they ever reach the Prendas Segura property. Furthermore, the appeal claims that the drainage and discharge of the property’s springs and streams would cause material damage, but according to the 2007 and 2009 studies, on the property there are no permanent springs (nacientes perpetuas) or streams in that sub-basin except those that drain the Prendas Segura spring (naciente) and those that were channeled by the road and discharge into the San Isidro River (leaf 1484). For his part, Mr. Guerrero Pacheco denies that the road on the disputed strip caused damage, as there are small channels that discharge outside (leaf 1491).

The Party under Investigation expresses its disagreement with the addition of the "Saab" Report. The Court rejects the challenges, given that the challenged evidence is a DFOE-AE-IF-01-2012 Public Audit Report (leafs 2243 ff.), ordered by the Comptroller General of the Republic for the Ministry of Environment and Energy in the Osa biological corridor, which was simply forwarded by the Court to MINAE for comments via the resolution at leaf 2282, so its addition appears useful and on point for the case. On the other hand, for the resolution of this matter, the Court considers that even though said audit report refers to the applications for forestry permits and their relationship with changes in forest cover (cobertura boscosa) in the Osa biological corridor, said data are based on subsequent studies, as derived from the same file that is attached at leafs 1328 ff., and in this case the object of the claim for material damage is the activities taking place in 2007 and 2009, so it does not refer to the specific facts of the case, nor to the specific events alleged, and therefore this evidence is set aside because it is not useful for resolving the merits.

VI.The right to an indemnity for the environmental damage caused. Even though the environmental damage was indeed proven, the Court considers that the claimants lacked sufficient interest for the claim seeking an indemnity for the environmental damage caused. For this, the Court takes into account that the third-party claimants filed this claim for material damage in accordance with the generic procedural rules of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, in their own name and defending their own interest in compensating said damage, in their capacity as owners of neighboring properties affected by the works. The Court considers that it is necessary to distinguish between the environmental damage that was proven and the claim for an indemnity for that damage. Indeed, environmental damage consists of the negative impact on the environment, in this case, on the forest ecosystem, which must be restored. The condemnation of the Public Administration for environmental damage can be claimed on the basis of a diffuse or collective interest (Exp. 95- 000111-1027-CA sentence No. 219-2000 of 9:30 a.m. on June 1, 2001 of the First Chamber), but when what is intended is the pecuniary indemnity for the material damage caused to specific assets and the loss of environmental services, the claimant must have sufficient interest or a differentiated interest in the claim. The diffuse interests and the individual interests are coexistent but independent, so it is perfectly possible that the diffuse environmental damage and the particular damage caused to the claimant overlap. However, the claim for the indemnity approved in this section was sought by the individual claimants as an indemnity for a personal and differentiated interest. In this case, the right to the claimed indemnity was based on the material damage that would have been caused to the resource by the earthworks (movimientos de tierra), to the properties of the claimants, and in the loss of environmental services as a consequence of the environmental damage. However, the Court-by-majority considers that based on the evidence, the existence of an individual and differentiated damage capable of generating an indemnity cannot be established with certainty for the affected individuals. This because the claimants are not the owners of the land where the environmental damage was caused, but rather the owners of neighboring lands, and they possess a diffuse interest in the protection of the environment, an interest that must be governed by the provisions of the Environmental Protection Law, especially regarding the restitution of the damaged environment (diffuse interest). Diffuse interest in environmental matters refers to the protection of nature as a common good, susceptible to restoration. In this case, a series of restoration measures were already approved by the Environmental Administrative Tribunal, through Vote 677-2010, which ordered restoration according to the plan proposed by the MINAE official, and that restitution corresponds to the diffuse interest. The diffuse interest in the restoration of the protected area is independent of any incidental or indirect damage that the claimants may have suffered in their own assets. For this claim to be admissible, they must prove a differentiated and personal damage, which was not sufficiently proven. The majority of the Court determined:

Del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, folio 390-396, artículo 22 de la Ley Forestal. En el presente caso, con un área de 4.83 km², es viable establecer una modificación del uso del suelo (cambio de uso del suelo) en áreas de producción agropecuaria e infraestructura.

Cuadro de Áreas de Infraestructura

Ah, don’t panic, don’t even breathe | And now this girl’s name is, ah, I’m so excited we’re not even going to tell you | I’m the sexiest man in this town | 3 2 1 come on shake your body baby do that congA | I know I can’t fight it I can’t hide it | COME AND SHAKE YOUR BODY BABY DO THAT CONGA | I’m just going to have to wait | He's just a guy from the neighborhood | I’m the sexiest man in this town | And I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman | I’m going to be the sexiest woman Artículo 6.—Prohibiciones. Se prohíbe, en terrenos cubiertos de bosque, cambiar el uso del suelo, así como realizar earthworks (movimientos de tierra), cortar, dañar, eliminar o destruir árboles, arbustos, productos o subproductos forestales, y efectuar cualquier manejo forestal, salvo que se cuente con la viabilidad (licencia) ambiental emitida por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) o con un plan de manejo forestal aprobado por la Administración Forestal del Estado (AFE), conforme a lo dispuesto en la Ley Forestal (Ley N° 7575), su Reglamento, y demás normativa aplicable. Asimismo, se prohíben las construcciones de cualquier tipo y los procesos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) de terrenos con cobertura boscosa, excepto aquellos proyectos declarados de interés público o conveniencia nacional, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25721-MINAE) y sus reformas. Para el caso de áreas de protección de nacientes (springs), ríos, quebradas y lagos, se estará a lo dispuesto en el Artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal y su Reglamento, especialmente en lo concerniente a la easement (servidumbre) de protección y la lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) de estas áreas.

Ley 7575 is a Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) that, in general terms, establishes as a function of the State, through the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), to ensure the conservation and rational management of forest resources, considering the environment as a whole, not only in terms of the protection of soils, water, and wildlife, but also as a natural source of life and a decisive element for sustainable human development. It is also worth noting that the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) considers the development of a series of actions and activities related to forestry matters, such as forest management, conservation, forest cover (cobertura boscosa), land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), and payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA), among others. This is why the regulation of this law was issued through Executive Decree 25721-MINAE, called the Regulations to the Forestry Law (Reglamento a la Ley Forestal).

Considerando:

I.—Que la gestión de las solicitudes de PSA ante FONAFIFO, debe de darse de manera más ágil, con el fin de cumplir con los objetivos de la Ley Forestal. Por lo que se ha considerado necesario definir un nuevo instrumento de gestión y contratación del Pago de Servicios Ambientales, que se le denominará "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", para los proyectos cuya área de PSA sea igual o menor a diez hectáreas, o cuyo monto total de PSA en el ciclo de contratación sea igual o menor al equivalente a diez hectáreas.

II.—Que mediante Acuerdo de Junta Directiva número cinco, adoptado en la Sesión Ordinaria número cuatrocientos setenta y cinco, celebrada el quince de noviembre del año dos mil dieciséis, se aprobó la modificación del "Manual de Procedimientos para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales", incorporando dentro de sus procedimientos el "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", como un nuevo instrumento de gestión y contratación del Pago de Servicios Ambientales.

III.—Que se hace necesario oficializar los formatos del "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", tanto para las modalidades de Protección de Bosque, como de Regeneración Natural, así como los formatos de los Anexos que formarán parte integral de dichos contratos.

Por tanto,

LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL FONDO NACIONAL DE FINANCIAMIENTO FORESTAL ACUERDA:

Artículo 1.—Aprobar los formatos del "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción" para las modalidades de Protección de Bosque y de Regeneración Natural, de acuerdo con el siguiente detalle:

| --- | --- | | Modalidad de PSA | Formato de Contrato | | Protección de Bosque | Anexo 1 | | Regeneración Natural | Anexo 2 | Artículo 2.—Los Anexos 1 y 2, que contienen los formatos de los contratos, forman parte integral del presente Acuerdo.

Artículo 3.—Se autoriza a la Dirección Ejecutiva para que pueda realizar las modificaciones de forma que resulten necesarias a los formatos aprobados, siempre que no alteren el contenido sustancial de los mismos y en apego a lo dispuesto en el Manual de Procedimientos para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales.

Artículo 4.—Rige a partir de su publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta.

San José, a los quince días del mes de noviembre del año dos mil dieciséis.

Dado en la Sesión Ordinaria número cuatrocientos setenta y cinco.

Manuel Guerrero Salazar Luis Guillermo Jiménez Chacón Secretario de Actas Ley 7575, Ley Forestal, establishes that forested areas (cobertura boscosa) under the Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) program shall be maintained with lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad). This principle was reinforced in Voto 4654-2003.

According to Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) within these zones requires a prior environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) from SETENA. The regulations in Decreto N° 31849-MINAE, specifically Art. 19, outline the specific criteria for the EIA, including the evaluation of impacts on water springs (nacientes) and the establishment of protection easements (servidumbre).

In Considerando III of the technical report, SINAC, through its regional office ACOSA, confirmed that the proposed subdivision (fraccionamiento) by the developer, INVU, as per the Reglamento de Fraccionamiento, would not affect the PSAH area designated in Anexo 1. However, ICAA noted in their technical opinion that the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) required for the project, detailed in Anexo 2, necessitate additional hydrological studies to be reviewed by ICE and MOPT.

The final resolution, according to the Por tanto section, mandates that the project proponent must secure a feasibility certification from CONARE regarding the environmental viability study. This condition is precedent to the approval of the land-use change by the municipality of JASEC. Furthermore, the developer must present risk assessment reports from CNE, IMN, and IGN to INDER for the final approval of the subdivision.

Artículo 6. — Para el otorgamiento de la licencia municipal de construcción en terrenos que presenten cobertura boscosa o que sean aptos para el bosque, de acuerdo con los criterios del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) y la cartografía oficial del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), la municipalidad respectiva deberá solicitar al interesado, como requisito previo e indispensable, la presentación de la autorización de corta de árboles o del estudio de impacto ambiental (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), según corresponda, emitidos por la autoridad ambiental competente.

Se exceptúan de este requisito las áreas dedicadas a la agricultura, ganadería o cualquier otro uso debidamente consolidado antes de la entrada en vigencia de la Ley Forestal, Ley 7575, siempre que se demuestre fehacientemente el cambio de uso del suelo (land-use change) ante la municipalidad, mediante certificación emitida por el SINAC o la autoridad del MINAE, con base en fotografías aéreas, imágenes satelitales u otros medios probatorios idóneos. El Reglamento a esta ley definirá los procedimientos y criterios técnicos correspondientes.

Las autorizaciones de corta en terrenos de dominio privado que se encuentren bajo el régimen de Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) o cualquier otro programa de conservación estatal, deberán contar, además, con el visto bueno del ente administrador del respectivo programa o contrato.

Para los efectos anteriores, el MINAE, a través del SINAC, mantendrá un sistema de información geográfica actualizado de la cobertura boscosa del país, el cual será de acceso público y vinculante para las municipalidades, tal como lo establece el Decreto Ejecutivo 25721 y sus reformas.

<p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> (f.</span></p> 92 to 103, 125 and 126 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 17) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 proceeded to file, via fax, a motion for reversal with a subsidiary appeal against the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 10:27:47 on June 11, 2015. She carried out this action through a special administrative representative, attorney Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, and indicated fax number 2572-1360 as the means for receiving notifications, and additionally requested "...also send me a text message notification of the existence of notifications to cell phone 88-13-55-89...". In that act, attorney Vargas Solano also proceeded to send a copy of his special power of attorney (f. 127 to 138 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 18) By administrative resolution issued at 14:16:50 on August 12, 2015, the Industrial Property Registry warned the applicant to submit the original of the special power of attorney within a period of ten business days (undisputed fact and f. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 19) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 11:01:21 on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: "...Based on the foregoing and cited legal provisions, IT IS RESOLVED: **To Dismiss as inadmissible the Motions for Reversal and the subsidiary Appeal filed**, against the resolution issued at 10:27:47 on June 11, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, representative of Nombre136138, in the file for the application to register the trademark "Volsurf & Comskate", in class 25..." (Highlighting is not from the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff at fax number 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (f. 139 to 144 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 20) By a writing received on October 6, 2015, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, acting as the special administrative representative of Nombre136138, filed a motion for reversal with a subsidiary appeal and a concomitant nullity proceeding against the resolution issued at 11:01:21 on September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered fax number 2573-4350 and, subsidiarily, email ...3906 as means of notification (f. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 21) With a receipt date of October 13, 2015, attorney Vargas Solano physically attached the special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Mrs. Nombre136138 (f. 166 and 167 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); and 22) In an administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 11:49:07 on October 30, 2015, the motion for reversal with a subsidiary appeal and the concomitant nullity proceeding that had been filed were declared without merit. This act was notified to the plaintiff at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (Undisputed fact and documents provided with the lawsuit and admitted during the preliminary hearing).- **V.- UNPROVEN FACTS.-** For the purposes of this ruling, the following facts are deemed not demonstrated, either because the parties failed to meet their evidentiary burdens, or because the Office found no suitable evidence that, in light of sound criticism, would allow for their accreditation: **1.-** The notification of the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 14:16:50 on August 12, 2015, adopted within administrative file 2014-007735.- **2.-** The existence of well-founded doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the special administrative power of attorney sent by fax to administrative files No. 2014-007735 and 2014-007735, corresponding to the trademark registration applications of the plaintiff here.- **VI.- ON THE MERITS.-** Having reviewed and analyzed the arguments used by the parties in this matter, this Court considers that the plaintiff is correct, specifically, regarding the restrictions that Administrations have concerning the simplification and rationalization of administrative procedures, since, as the plaintiff indeed cites and as will be explained below, the requirements for administrative petitions are governed by a principle of strict construction (*taxatividad*), rationality, and simplicity, in addition to other procedural principles that prioritize the substantial nature of the action, such as informalism and *in dubio pro actione*, all of which lead, as we shall see, to the Administration having to channel administrative procedures toward their due and prompt resolution in an effective, efficient, simple, continuous manner adapted to the needs of the service, giving prevalence to the substantive analysis of the actions, so that inadmissibility based on form can only have a place provided it concerns solely and exclusively prerequisites of indispensable verification. This orientation is accounted for in the General Law of Public Administration, Law No. 6227 (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) in its Articles 4, 223, 224, and 269.1, as well as the doctrine permeating Law No. 8220 of March 4, 2002, the Law for the Protection of Citizens from the Excess of Requirements and Administrative Procedures (Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos). In the first place, constitutional case law has been clear and concise in developing a series of constitutional principles—primarily from Article 4 of the Law of General Public Administration—that must characterize administrative functioning, particularly regarding so-called bureaucratic procedures: **“III.- CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF EFFICACY, EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY, AND CELERITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION.** *The Political Constitution, in its organic part, gathers or enunciates some guiding principles of administrative function and organization, which as such must orient, direct, and condition all public administrations in their daily tasks. Among such principles, efficacy, efficiency, simplicity, and celerity stand out (articles –all from the Political Constitution– 140, subsection 8, insofar as it imposes on the Executive Branch the duty to "Oversee the good functioning of administrative services and dependencies," 139, subsection 4, to the extent that it incorporates the concept of "good conduct of the Government," and 191, by gathering the principle of "efficiency of the administration"). These constitutional principles have been developed by sub-constitutional regulations; thus, the General Law of Public Administration includes them in Articles 4°, 225, paragraph 1°, and 269, paragraph 1°, and **mandates that they must orient and nurture all administrative organization and function.** **Efficacy as a principle supposes that the administrative organization and function must be designed and conceived to guarantee the attainment of the objectives, ends, and goals proposed and assigned by the legal order itself, which must be linked to planning and evaluation or accountability** (Article 11, paragraph 2°, of the Political Constitution). Efficiency implies obtaining the best results with the greatest savings in costs or the rational use of human, material, technological, and financial resources. **Simplicity requires that administrative structures and their competences be easy to comprehend and understand, without convoluted procedures that delay the satisfaction of the committed public interests. For its part, celerity obligates public administrations to fulfill their objectives and ends of satisfying public interests, through diverse mechanisms, in the most expeditious, rapid, and accurate manner possible to avoid undue delays.** *This set of principles imposes permanent demands, responsibilities, and duties on all public entities that they cannot decline in a transitory or singular manner* […] *Thus, when the Public Administration performs its function and processes matters of interest to the administered, it must refrain from demanding excessive requirements from the administered, especially when these lack a regulatory basis, which obstruct procedures and harm the fundamental rights of the administered..."* (Highlighting is not from the original. See judgment No. 2007-15849 issued at 17:59 on October 31, 2007. In the same vein: 2003-11382 issued at 15:11 on October 7, 2003, 2005-05600 issued at 16:34 on May 10, 2005, 2012-06859 issued at 15:32 on May 23, 2012, 2015-04295 issued at 09:30 on March 27, 2015, and 2017-07259 issued at 09:45 on May 19, 2017, among others). Now then, the universe of authorizations, permits, or administrative petitions of diverse kinds that have practical relevance in people's lives in their relationship with public institutions or entities has come to be known colloquially in our environment as "administrative procedures," "red tape" (tramitología), or bureaucracy; and it is precisely in this sector of administrative functioning where the application of these constitutional principles has the greatest importance. Thus, through the Law for the Protection of Citizens from the Excess of Requirements and Administrative Procedures, Law No. 8220 (Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos), the legislator has attempted to link constitutional case law with the daily tasks of Administrations, establishing a series of limits on them regarding the management of these procedures and, at the same time, granting a series of procedural rights to the Administered, which as a whole aims to provide people with certainty as to what and to what extent public institutions can require of them in handling their requests, in the form of requirements and their qualification. Within the Articles of this law, and of importance for the resolution of the present matter, it is worth transcribing the following: *"...Article 2- Single submission of documents.* ***The information submitted by an administered person to an entity, organ, or official of the Public Administration may not be requested again by them for that same procedure or another one within that same entity or organ.** *Likewise, no public entity, organ, or official may request from the administered person information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess.* [...] *Article 4.- Publicity of procedures and subjection to the law.* ***Every procedure or requirement, regardless of its regulatory source, in order to be demanded of the administered person must: a) Be contained in a law, an executive decree, or a regulation. b) Be published in the official newspaper La Gaceta along with the procedure to be followed, the instructions, manuals, forms, and other corresponding documents*** *and be placed in a visible location within the institution. Likewise, a notice referring to said publication must be published in a newspaper of national circulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, said procedures or requirements may be disseminated by electronic means. The citizen information office of the institutions shall be responsible for explaining to the user the requirements and the procedure for the granting of requests, permits, licenses, or authorizations. If the institution does not have such an office, it must designate a department or a person for this purpose..."* (Highlighting is not from the original). This preamble is of utmost importance, as the Administration, specifically the Industrial Property Registry, has situated its defense on the essential nature of a requirement in an administrative procedure. So, did the submission of the original of the special administrative power of attorney constitute an indispensable requirement in Mrs. Nombre136138's trademark registration procedures? For this Court, the answer is negative, particularly considering that the power of attorney had already been submitted and received by the Industrial Property Registry via electronic means (see **proven facts No. 11 and 21**) and given that neither the Administration nor the opposing administrative party: the company Volcom, Inc., which opposed the registration of the trademarks and was represented by its representative, Mr. Nombre111676, had questioned either the authenticity or the integrity of the document. The defendant Administrations have alleged in the process that the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Law No. 7978 (Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos) and its implementing regulation establish that the submission of the original power of attorney is a requirement of the administrative procedure and, consequently, the rejection for non-compliance is legally sound. In this regard, the articles cited by the defendants state: **Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Law No. 7978 of January 6, 2000:** *"...Article 9- Registration application. The application for registration of a trademark shall be filed with the Industrial Property Registry and shall contain the following: a*) ***Name and address of the applicant. b) Place of incorporation and domicile of the applicant, when it is a legal entity. c) Name of the legal representative, where applicable. d) Name and address of the representative in the country, when the applicant does not have a real and effective domicile or commercial establishment in the country.** e) The trademark whose registration is requested, when it is a standard word mark without special graphics, form, or color. f) A reproduction of the trademark in the number of copies determined by the regulations of this law, when dealing with word marks with special graphics, form, or color, or figurative, mixed, or three-dimensional marks with or without color. g) A translation of the trademark, when it consists of any word element with a meaning in a language other than Spanish. h) A list of the names of the products or services for which the trademark is used or will be used, grouped by classes according to the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services, with the class number indicated. i) The documents or authorizations required in the cases provided for in subsections m), n), and p) of Article 7 and subsections f) and g) of Article 8 of this law, when pertinent. j) The proof of payment of the established fee. **Applicants may process matters before the Registry themselves, with the assistance of a lawyer and notary, or through a representative. When a representative carries out proceedings, they must submit the corresponding power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements of Article 82 bis of this Law. If said power of attorney is already on file with the Industrial Property Registry, the trademark file, its name, and the application or registration number in which it is located must be indicated; the representative may act only to the extent permitted by the originally authorized faculties.** When the applicant wishes to claim the priority of an earlier application, they shall submit the declaration of priority and the documents referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of this law, with the registration application and within the established time limits. The declaration of priority shall contain the following data: a) The name of the country or regional office where the priority application was filed. b) The filing date of the priority application. c) The number of the priority application, if assigned.* [...] *Article 13- Examination of form.* ***The Industrial Property Registry shall examine whether the application complies with the provisions of Article 9 of this law and the corresponding regulatory provisions**, for which it shall have a period of fifteen business days counted from the date of receipt of the application. If any of the requirements mentioned in Article 9 of this law or the corresponding regulatory provisions have not been met,* ***the Registry shall notify the applicant to remedy the error or omission within a period of fifteen business days from the corresponding notification, under warning that the application will be deemed abandoned***..." (Highlighting is not from the original). **Regulation to the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Executive Decree No. 30233-J of February 20, 2002:** *"...Article 54.- Functions of the Director. The Director of the Industrial Property Registry, or the official who legally substitutes them, shall be in charge of the following functions: a) Issuing the corresponding resolutions in matters submitted to their knowledge and requesting from interested parties any additional documents deemed necessary for resolution..."* (Highlighting is not from the original). As can be seen from the rules in question, the defendant Administrations are correct in that the submission of the power of attorney is a requirement for an administered person who requests the registration of a trademark when acting through a representative, but none of these rules require the submission of the original document in its physical version, although Article 9 of the Law on Trademarks, Law No. 7978 (Ley de Marcas) does refer, regarding the formal requirements of the power of attorney, to Article 82 bis of that same normative body, which states the following: "*Article 82 bis.- Power of attorney for intellectual property. To act on behalf of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property,* ***an authorization from the grantor, in an authenticated mandate, is required as the minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required.** *When the power of attorney is issued abroad, it may be formalized according to the internal law of the country where it is granted, and must be authenticated.* ***Unless otherwise provided, every representative shall be understood to be authorized, sufficient, and competent to perform all acts that the laws authorize the holder himself** of the corresponding intellectual or industrial property rights, before any authority, office, or public registry, for the application, registration, renewal, transfer, licensing, and other applicable movements,* ***the conservation or defense of their rights, both in administrative and judicial venues, in all their instances and incidents…"*** (Highlighting is not from the original). Again, this rule does not establish the obligation to submit the physical or original document of a requesting party's special administrative power of attorney; on the contrary, the minimum formality required is authentication. Therefore, and following the constitutional guidelines developed through Law No. 8220, we must next confront these general principles with those grounds that would have been given by the Administration in the administrative procedure of the appeal action filed within the trademark registration procedures, namely, specifically, in the administrative resolutions issued at 14:48:10 (administrative file No. 2014-007734 – proven fact 8) and at 14:16:50 (administrative file No. 2014-007735 – proven fact 18), both on August 12, 2015. As both concern the same warning, we will proceed to analyze the warning carried out in the first of these, which expressly indicates the following: *“…Procedural capacity: According to the records of the file in question, the appearance as representative of Mr. Roy L. Vargas Solano occurs at the appeal stage; therefore, the appellant must provide the original of the special power of attorney, since the one presented is a simple copy sent by fax, which is not acceptable in this case according to the Administrative Registral Court: In the specific case, given that proper procedural capacity was not accredited by the Attorney* […] ***due to the fact that he did not comply with the pertinent warnings made by this Court to attach to the present file the original or a certified copy of the power of attorney*** *appearing at folio 89, which was submitted to the proceedings via fax, to accredit his procedural capacity to intervene in the process, representing the company* […] *since* ***said power of attorney is a simple copy and, in accordance with the supplementary regulations applicable to this matter by this Court, namely Article 12 of the Judicial Notifications Law No.** Plate 742, refers only to the submission of filings via fax and other similar means, not to other types of documents whose originals or certification thereof are indispensable to demonstrate a specific situation or condition, in this case the legitimation of the Attorney [...] to act in representation of the company [...] in his capacity as appellant in the present matter, by means of a suitable power of attorney (poder) document, which is why his actions and petition, made before the Registry and this Court, are improper (improcedentes), since ultimately a suitable document accrediting his representation is not contained in the case file…” (Emphasis is not from the original). As we can see, the criterion of the Industrial Property Registry is based exclusively on the criterion of a non-hierarchical oversight body, which interprets that the document relating to a power of attorney (poder) submitted via fax constitutes a simple copy and that due to this condition or characteristic it loses all suitability (idoneidad) to accredit representation, which in turn is an indispensable requirement in the administrative procedure (trámite administrativo). For the majority of this Court, that reasoning is erroneous, since a requirement of this type in effect lacks normative and factual support, and therefore proves unreasonable. First, we must recall that the administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) is one of the many forms of exercising the administrative function, such that the supplementary application of procedural rules of a jurisdictional nature, pursuant to numerals 9 and 13 of the LGAP, is only legitimate in the event that no written or unwritten administrative normative source exists, since as we saw previously, the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excess Requirements and Administrative Procedures (Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos) and the principles of public service oblige administrative functioning to be simple, effective, and swift, for which the requirement in question must be provided for in a Law or Regulation and once the information is submitted, it “…may not be required again by them, for that same procedure (trámite) or another in that same entity or body…”. On this point, the executive decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) to this law, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 37045-MP-MEIC of February 22, 2012, provides: “…Article 29º-Request for information. For their part, the bodies and entities of the Public Administration subject to the application of this regulation may not require citizens to provide additional documents beyond those expressly indicated in a law, executive decree (decreto ejecutivo), or regulation for a specific procedure (trámite determinado). The citizen must submit, only once, the information that the Public Administration requires for the resolution of his procedure (trámite). The Administration may not request that these be renewed or submitted again if the generating event for the document has not changed, except for cases in which, at the time of initiating the procedure (trámite), some of the documents are expired and their update is necessary for the resolution of the procedure (trámite). In exceptional cases and when regulatory provisions so establish, the entity or body of the Public Administration has the power to request expansions or additional clarifications of the documents already provided in the application by the citizen. Said request shall be made in writing, with a statement of reasons (de manera motivada), and on a single occasion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such power must be used restrictively, on an exceptional basis, and when the additional document is essential for the resolution of the procedure (trámite)…” (Emphasis is not from the original). As can be observed from the transcription of the resolution of the Industrial Property Registry, the sole reason to support the administrative decision rests in that the document is a simple copy sent by fax, without there being an intervening question regarding the integrity or authenticity of the document. In the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, the citizen (administrado) effectively delivered the information required by the regulation, such as the accreditation of the mandate (mandato) that authorized Mr. Vargas Solano so that, in the terms of article 87 bis of the Trademark Law (Ley de Marcas), he could defend the rights of the petitioner in all instances of the administrative venue. In that sense, the foundation used by the respondent Administration to justify its action in the criteria of the Administrative Registry Court (Tribunal Registral Administrativo) is insufficient to rebut the imposition of the legal norm, in particular, that which is fostered by Law N° 8220 and its regulation, such that for the majority of this Chamber, the prevention regarding original documentation could only be reasonable if, through a duly reasoned (motivado) act and in the interest of guaranteeing juridical security and certainty, the Administration expressed concrete and well-founded doubts regarding the authenticity or integrity of the document that had been transmitted by electronic or telematic means, and not as in the present case, for the fact of it constituting a simple copy of the document. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that article 12 of the Judicial Notifications Law (Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales) —which is the rule used in the criteria of the Registry Court (Tribunal Registral)— does not oblige the submission of documentation in physical form, but rather regulates the possibility for the parties in a judicial process to remit information by telematic means or other technological systems that the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) enables for these effects, as currently occurs with the electronic judicial case file or “Online Management” system. The numeral in question states: “..Article 12.- Response and reply to notifications. Those intervening in a process may carry out proceedings before the court, through electronic, computer, telematic, or similar means that permit the sending of the communication and its normal reception, in such a way that its authenticity is guaranteed, in the form that the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) has so provided. The electronic, computer, telematic, or other similar means shall be accessible to screen readers for the visually impaired…” (Emphasis). As can be observed, only in those cases where the authenticity of the information cannot be guaranteed, can information not transmitted by telematic means be impugned. Thus, this Court considers that in reality no certain or legal motive existed for the Industrial Property Registry to be able to demand the submission of the physical document of the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) as a requirement to accredit the representation of Mrs. Nombre136138 , since the copy already remitted via fax was sufficient for this, the consideration that merely by the condition of being a physical copy, the same was unsuitable for this purpose being improper (improcedente). To all this, we must add that as has been taken as demonstrated in proven facts n° 11 and 21, the original power of attorney (poder) was subsequently presented and received by the Industrial Property Registry, such that we are in the presence of the requirement of a formality for the formality’s own sake, contrary to everything cited previously, but especially to article 223 of the LGAP: "...Only the omission of substantial formalities of the procedure (procedimiento) shall cause nullity of what has been acted upon...". Thus, without a founded motive to doubt the authenticity or integrity of the document remitted via fax, the majority of the Court considers that the Administration's provisions to require as a requirement the submission of such a physical document, and subsequently, the rejection of the appeals (recursos) and the registration petition (gestión de inscripción) resulting from the non-attendance of that requirement, then became an unnecessary measure and thereby unreasonable and disproportional according to what was seen before. Ergo, the administrative acts by which an end was put to those administrative proceedings (gestiones administrativas) become substantially non-conforming with the administrative legal order for lacking motive, that is, because the factual and juridical antecedents that permit exercising competence for the specific case are missing, such that the action of the Public Administration is impeded, since there would be no legitimate cause for the exercise of the administrative function by its agents. On the other hand, it is worth clarifying that given that this Court does not question the need to accredit representation and since it is also not of relevance whether the document in question has or does not have the character of an electronic document, it is possible to dispense with the allegations related to the application to the specific case of articles 103 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) and 3 of the Law of Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents (Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos), which are not relevant, nor do they affect the conclusion that in effect, the Administration acted contrary to the Law by demanding compliance with a requirement that the plaintiff party here had already adequately satisfied in the procedure (trámite) carried out before that Dependency, or at least, without there being a founded opposition beyond its mere character as a simple copy. Consequently and by virtue of everything said before, the claim (demanda) must be granted in all its respects, declaring the nullity of the administrative acts of both procedures, by which the requirement of the original document of the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) was warned, as well as the final acts by which the rejection of the filed administrative appeals (recursos administrativos) was ordered, such that the Industrial Property Registry must pronounce itself anew on these as appropriate in Law and within statutory time limits, by means of due communication of the respective act to the means of notification that are contained in the administrative case files. Finally, it is worth clarifying that with this judgment, the Section is not pronouncing itself on the merits of the administrative proceeding (gestión administrativa), as the object of the nullity declared herein rests on the acts by which the cognizance of the administrative appeals (recursos administrativos) filed against the final acts of both trademark registration procedures is rejected, it now being incumbent upon the Administration for their adequate resolution in that venue.- VII.- ON THE OPPOSED DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES).- Since both the State and the Administrative Board of the National Registry limited their arguments to the defense (excepción) of lack of right and given that as has been exposed in this pronouncement, the annulment claim (pretensión anulatoria) promoted by the plaintiff party has found juridical basis and must be granted as has indeed been ordered, what corresponds then is to deny the defense (defensa) opposed by the respondent Administrations, as it is improper (improcedente).- VIII.- ON COSTS (COSTAS).- In accordance with articles 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil, Law N° 9342), condemnation to the payment of costs (costas) constitutes an obligation imposed on the losing party by the very fact of being so, for the benefit of the winning party, in order to reimburse the latter for the various categories of expenses listed therein. Both numerals foresee various grounds for exemption from this condemnation, such that in the absence of arguments or evidence that allow this Court, in the specific case, to weigh and take any of these reasons as accredited, it is not then possible to exempt the losing party, partially or totally, from the application of said legal principle, such that in conformity with the cited rules, what is proper is to impose condemnation on the losing party. In supplementary application of the provisions of articles 61.2, 62.1, and 76.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil, Law N° 9342), since in this matter the amount of the condemnation is performed in abstracto and therefore, pending liquidation in the sentence execution phase, the determination of the amount of costs (costas) shall take place in that stage, taking as a basis for this the total amount condemned, as well as the liquidation and the corresponding evidence that must be provided to the case file by the winning party.-

POR TANTO:

By majority, THE DEFENSE (EXCEPCIÓN) OF LACK OF RIGHT IS REJECTED, as opposed by the respondents.- Consequently and by majority, the claim (demanda) filed by Nombre136138 is DECLARED WITH MERIT, against EL ESTADO and the JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL.- The absolute nullity of the following administrative resolutions of the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry is thus declared: a) In administrative case file n° 2014-007734: 1. Resolution of 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, 2. Resolution of 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, and 3. Resolution of 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015; and b) In administrative case file n° 2014-007735: 1. Resolution of 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, 2. Resolution of 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015, and 3. Resolution of 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015. The Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry must consequently pronounce itself anew on these administrative appeals (recursos administrativos) as appropriate in Law and within statutory time limits, by means of due communication of the respective act to the means of notification that are contained in the administrative case files.- The losing party is condemned to the full payment of costs (costas) and their interests in the terms set forth in Considerando VIII of this judgment.- Judge Abarca Gómez issues a dissenting vote (salva el voto) and Judge Aguilar Méndez sets down a note.-.- Let it be notified.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Cynthia Abarca Gómez Roberto Garita Navarro NOTE FROM JUDGE AGUILAR MÉNDEZ.- Specifically regarding the condemnation to the payment of costs (costas), although the criterion is unanimous that it must effectively be imposed on the losing party solely for being so, with all due respect I differ from my colleagues regarding the abstract or liquid character of this pronouncement. Given the scant regulation that the different procedural normative bodies in this matter have had on this point, as the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) was in its time and the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) is currently, a widespread application by supplementarity (supletoriedad) of the rules of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) took place, precisely as authorized by numerals 220 ídem and articles 9 and 13 of the General Law of the Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently and according to the current wording of article 62.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil, Law N° 9342), it constitutes an unavoidable duty of the Court to establish in the operative part (fallo) of the judgment "…at once the exact amount of the sums granted, their adjustments up to the judgment, including interests and costs (costas)…" (Emphasis is not from the original). Consequently, and given the absence of a contrary administrative rule, the appropriate course would be to include in the costs section of this judgment the determination of these latter items, exactly as the juridical order provides, and not to reserve its pronouncement for the sentence execution stage.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez, Judge.- Dissenting vote (Voto salvado) of Judge Abarca Gómez With the accustomed respect and consideration, I must depart from the decision adopted by the majority of this Court in this process for the following reasons. I.- The majority vote considers, in essence, that none of the rules cited by the respondent parties requires the submission of the original document relating to the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) that was required of the person who presented the appeals (recursos) in the name of the plaintiff here. However, I consider that article 82 bis of the Trademark Law (Ley de Marcas) does establish it. Said rule states, relevantly, "(...) Power for intellectual property (Poder para propiedad intelectual). To act on behalf of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property, one must have the authorization of the grantor, in an authenticated mandate (mandato autenticado), as a minimum formality; and in any event the registration of said mandate will not be required. (...)". In my criterion, when the rule states "authenticated mandate (mandato autenticado)", it unavoidably refers to the original document, which is the only one that could be authenticated, since if it were a copy, the appropriate procedure would be its certification. Thus, the submission of the sufficient mandate (mandato) in original form does constitute a requirement established by law, which is why the prevention would not violate any provision of Law N° 8220. In the case at hand, in attention to the pro actione principle and in conformity with the provisions of articles 283, 286, and 287 of the General Law of the Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the respondent Administration warned the supposed attorney of the plaintiff to provide the original of the power of attorney (poder) that accredited him to act in the proceeding (procedimiento) and the latter did not attend to what was required. For this reason, I consider that the decision to reject outright (de plano) the appeals (recursos) formulated is adjusted to law, which would lead to the claim (demanda) filed here being declared without merit, with the respective condemnation of the plaintiff party to costs (costas).

</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center\"><span style=\"font-family:'Palatino Linotype'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Cynthia Abarca Gómez </span></p><table cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" style=\"border-collapse:collapse\"><tr><td style=\"width:504pt; padding-right:3.25pt; padding-left:3.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">- Código Verificador -</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:504pt; padding-right:3.25pt; padding-left:3.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'\">*0GVT1J0WLNY61*</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">0GVT1J0WLNY61</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Documento firmado por:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">DANIEL AGUILAR MENDEZ, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">CYNTHIA ABARCA GOMEZ, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri\">&#xa0;</span></p> These constitutional principles have been developed by sub-constitutional regulations, as the General Law on Public Administration collects them in Articles 4, 225, paragraph 1, and 269, paragraph 1, and **mandates that they must guide and nourish all administrative organization and function.** **Efficacy as a principle means that the administrative organization and function must be designed and conceived to guarantee the attainment of the objectives, purposes, and goals proposed and assigned by the legal system itself, and it must therefore be linked to planning and to evaluation or accountability** (Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution). Efficiency implies obtaining the best results with the greatest cost savings or the rational use of human, material, technological, and financial resources. **Simplicity demands that administrative structures and their competencies be easy to comprehend and understand, without convoluted procedures that delay the satisfaction of the public interests at stake. For its part, celerity obligates public administrations to fulfill their objectives and purposes of satisfying public interests, through the various mechanisms, in the most expeditious, rapid, and accurate manner possible to avoid undue delays.** This set of principles imposes permanent demands, responsibilities, and duties on all public entities that they cannot decline on a transitory or singular basis […] *Thus, when the Public Administration performs its function and processes matters of interest to the administered parties, it must refrain from requiring excessive requisites from the administered parties, especially when these lack normative support, which would obstruct procedures and harm the fundamental rights of the administered parties…"* (Highlighting is not from the original. See judgment No. 2007-15849 at 5:59 p.m. on October 31, 2007. In the same sense: 2003-11382 at 3:11 p.m. on October 7, 2003, 2005-05600 at 4:34 p.m. on May 10, 2005, 2012-06859 at 3:32 p.m. on May 23, 2012, 2015-04295 at 9:30 a.m. on March 27, 2015, and 2017-07259 at 9:45 a.m. on May 19, 2017, among others). Now, the universe of authorizations, permits, or administrative petitions of diverse kinds that have practical relevance in the lives of people in their relationship with public institutions or entities has come to be colloquially known in our environment as "administrative procedures (trámites administrativos)," "red tape (tramitología)," or bureaucracy; and it is precisely in that sector of administrative functioning where the application of these constitutional principles has the greatest transcendence. Thus, through the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excessive Administrative Requirements and Procedures (Ley Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos), the legislator has attempted to link constitutional jurisprudence with the daily work of the Administrations, establishing a series of limits on them regarding the management of these procedures and, at the same time, granting a series of procedural rights to the Administered parties, which as a whole aims to provide people with certainty regarding what and to what extent the public institutional framework can require of them in attending to their requests, in the form of requirements and their qualification. Within the articles of this law, and of importance for the resolution of the present matter, it is worth transcribing the following: *"…Article 2-Single presentation of documents.* **The information that an administered party presents to an entity, body, or official of the Public Administration may not be required again by them for that same procedure or another one in that same entity or body** *. Likewise, no entity, body, or public official may request from the administered party information that one or more of its same offices issue or possess.* […] *Article 4.- Publicity of procedures and subjection to law.* **Every procedure or requirement, regardless of its normative source, in order to be required of the administered party must: a) Be set forth in a law, an executive decree, or a regulation. b) Be published in the official gazette La Gaceta along with the procedure to be followed, the instructions, manuals, forms, and other corresponding documents** *and be located in a visible place within the institution. Likewise, a notice referring to said publication must be published in a newspaper of national circulation. Without prejudice to the foregoing, said procedures or requirements may be disseminated through electronic means. The citizen information office of the institutions shall be responsible for explaining to the user the requirements and the procedure for granting requests, permits, licenses, or authorizations. In the event of not having that office, the institution must designate a department or a person for this purpose…"* (Highlighting is not from the original). This preamble is of utmost importance, because the Administration, specifically, the Industrial Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad Industrial) has situated its defense on the essential nature of a requirement in an administrative procedure. So, did the presentation of the original of the special administrative power of attorney constitute an indispensable requirement in the trademark registration procedures of Mrs. Azofeifa González? For this Court, the answer is negative, particularly considering that the power of attorney had already been presented and received by the Industrial Property Registry via telematic means (see **proven facts No. 11 and 21**) and given that neither the Administration nor the administrative counterpart: the company Volcom, Inc., which opposed the registration of the trademarks and was represented by its agent, Mr. Néstor Morera Víquez, had questioned either the authenticity or the integrity of the document. The respondent Administrations have alleged in the process that the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs (Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos) and its Executive Regulation establish that the presentation of the original power of attorney is a requirement of the administrative procedure and, consequently, the rejection for non-compliance with the same is in accordance with the Law. In this regard, the articles cited by the respondents state: **Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Law No. 7978 of January 6, 2000:** *"…Article 9- Application for registration. The application for registration of a trademark shall be filed before the Industrial Property Registry and shall contain the following: a* **) Name and address of the applicant. b) Place of incorporation and domicile of the applicant, when a legal entity. c) Name of the legal representative, when applicable. d) Name and address of the agent in the country, when the applicant does not have a real and effective domicile or commercial establishment in the country.** *e) The trademark whose registration is requested, when it is a word mark without special script, form, or color. f) A reproduction of the trademark in the number of copies determined by the regulation of this law, when it involves word marks with special script, form, or color, or figurative, mixed, or three-dimensional trademarks with or without color. g) A translation of the trademark, when it is composed of a word element with a meaning in a language other than Spanish. h) A list of the names of the products or services for which the trademark is used or will be used, grouped by classes according to the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services, indicating the class number. i) The documents or authorizations required in the cases provided for in subparagraphs m), n), and p) of Article 7 and subparagraphs f) and g) of Article 8 of this law, when pertinent. j) Proof of payment of the established fee.* **Applicants may process matters before the Registry by themselves, with the assistance of a lawyer and notary, or through an agent. When an agent carries out procedures, they must present the corresponding power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements of Article 82 bis of this Law. If said power of attorney is already in the Industrial Property Registry, the trademark file, the name of the trademark, and the application or registration number where it is located must be indicated; the agent may act to the extent allowed by the originally authorized powers** *. When the applicant wishes to claim the priority of an earlier application, they shall present the priority declaration and the documents referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of this law, with the registration application and within the established deadlines. The priority declaration shall contain the following data: a) The name of the country or regional office where the priority application was filed. b) The filing date of the priority application. c) The number of the priority application, if assigned.* […] *Article 13- Formal examination.* **The Industrial Property Registry shall examine whether the application complies with the provisions of Article 9 of this law and the corresponding regulatory provisions** *, for which it shall have a period of fifteen working days counted from the date of receipt of the application. If any of the requirements mentioned in Article 9 of this law or the corresponding regulatory provisions have not been fulfilled,* **the Registry shall notify the applicant to correct the error or omission within a period of fifteen working days from the corresponding notification, with the warning that the application will be considered abandoned** *…"* (Highlighting is not from the original). **Regulation to the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Executive Decree No. 30233-J of February 20, 2002:** *"…Article 54.- Functions of the Director. The Director of the Industrial Property Registry, or the official who legally substitutes for him/her, shall be responsible for the following functions: a) Issuing the corresponding resolutions in matters submitted to his/her knowledge and requesting from interested parties the additional documents deemed necessary for resolution…"* (Highlighting is not from the original). As can be seen from the norms in question, the respondent Administrations are correct in that the presentation of the power of attorney is a requirement for the administered party who requests the registration of a trademark, when acting through an agent, but none of these norms requires the presentation of the original document in its physical version, although Article 9 of the Law on Trademarks does refer, regarding formal requirements of the power of attorney, to numeral 82 bis of that same normative body, which states the following: "*Article 82 bis.- Power of attorney for intellectual property. To act in the name of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property,* **authorization from the grantor is required, in an authenticated mandate, as a minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required** *. When the power of attorney is granted abroad, it may be formalized in accordance with the domestic law of the country where it is granted, and must be authenticated.* **Unless otherwise provided, every agent shall be understood to be authorized, sufficient, and competent to perform all acts that the laws authorize the owner** *of the corresponding intellectual or industrial property rights to perform, before any authority, office, or public registry, for the application, registration, renewal, transfer, licensing, and other applicable movements,* **the conservation or defense of their rights, both in administrative and judicial venues, in all their instances and incidents** *…"* (Highlighting is not from the original). Again, this norm does not establish the obligation to present the physical or original document of the special administrative power of attorney of an applicant person; on the contrary, the minimum formality required is authentication. Therefore, and following the constitutional guidelines developed through Law No. 8220, we must next confront against these general principles those grounds that would have been given by the Administration in the administrative procedure of the appeal process filed within the trademark registration procedures, namely, specifically, in the administrative resolutions of 2:48:10 p.m. (administrative file No. 2014-007734 – proven fact 8) and of 2:16:50 p.m. (administrative file No. 2014-007735 – proven fact 18), both on August 12, 2015. Since both deal with the same prevention, we will proceed to analyze the warning made in the first of these, which expressly indicates the following: *"…Procedural capacity: According to the records of the case file, the appearance as agent of Mr. Roy L. Vargas Solano is presented at the appeal stage; therefore, the challenger must provide the original of the special power of attorney, since the one presented is a simple copy sent by fax, which is not acceptable in this case according to the Administrative Registry Court: In the specific case, not having accredited the due procedural capacity by the Licentiate* […] **b** *ecause he did not comply with the pertinent warnings made by this Court to proceed to attach to the present file the original or certified copy of the power of attorney* *appearing on folio 89, which was presented to the records via fax, to accredit his procedural capacity to intervene in the process, representing the company* […] *as* **said power of attorney is a simple copy and, in accordance with the supplementary regulations that this Court applies on this matter, namely Article 12 of Law on Judicial Notifications No. 8687, it refers only to the presentation of writs via fax and other similar means, but not to other types of documents whose originals or certification thereof are indispensable to demonstrate a certain situation or condition, that is, in this case the legitimacy of the Licentiate** […] **to act representing the company** […] *in his capacity as appellant in the present matter, through a suitable power-of-attorney document, which is why his action and petition, made before the Registry and this Court, are inadmissible, as ultimately a suitable document accrediting his representation does not appear in the records…"* (Highlighting is not from the original). As we see, the criterion of the Industrial Property Registry rests exclusively on the criterion of a non-hierarchical controlling body, which interprets that the document relating to a power of attorney presented via fax constitutes a simple copy and that, because of that condition or characteristic, it loses all suitability to accredit representation, which in turn is an indispensable requirement in the administrative procedure. For the majority of this Court, that reasoning is erroneous, because a requirement of this type indeed lacks normative and factual support and, therefore, is unreasonable.

First, we must recall that the administrative procedure is one of the many forms of exercising the administrative function, so the supplementary application of procedural norms of a jurisdictional nature, in accordance with numerals 9 and 13 LGAP, is only legitimate in the event that there is no administrative normative source, written or unwritten, since, as we saw above, the Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos and the principles of public service require that administrative functioning must be simple, effective, and swift, for which purpose the requirement in question must be provided for in a Law or Regulation and, once the information has been submitted, it “…may not be requested again by these entities, for that same procedure or another one in that same entity or body…”. On this point, the executive regulation to this law, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 37045-MP-MEIC of February 22, 2012, provides: “…Article 29-Request for information. For their part, the bodies and entities of the Public Administration subject to the application of this regulation may not require citizens to provide additional documents beyond those expressly indicated in a law, executive decree, or regulation for a specific procedure. The citizen must submit only once the information that the Public Administration requires for the resolution of their procedure. The Administration may not request that they renew or resubmit them if the generating event of the document has not changed, except in cases where, at the time of initiating the procedure, any of the documents is expired and its updating is necessary for the resolution of the procedure. In exceptional cases and when regulatory provisions so establish, the entity or body of the Public Administration has the power to require additional amplifications or clarifications of the documents already provided in the application by the citizen. Said requirement shall be made in writing, with a statement of reasons, and only once. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such power must be used restrictively, exceptionally, and when the additional document is essential for the resolution of the procedure…” (Highlighting is not from the original). As can be observed from the transcription of the resolution of the Industrial Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad Industrial), the sole reason to support the administrative decision lies in the fact that the document is a simple copy sent by fax, without there being any questioning of the integrity or authenticity of the document. In the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, the administered party effectively delivered the information required by the norm, such as the accreditation of the mandate that authorized Mr. Vargas Solano to, under the terms of Article 87 bis of the Ley de Marcas, defend the petitioner's rights in all instances of the administrative venue. In this sense, the grounds used by the defendant Administration to justify its actions based on the criteria of the Administrative Registry Tribunal (Tribunal Registral Administrativo) are not sufficient to rebut the imposition of the legal norm, particularly what is upheld by Ley N° 8220 and its regulation, such that for the majority of this Chamber, the requirement for the original documentation could only be reasonable insofar as, through a duly reasoned act and in order to guarantee legal security and certainty, the Administration expressed concrete and well-founded doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the document that had been transmitted by electronic or telematic means, and not, as in the present case, due to the mere fact that it constitutes a simple copy of the document. Additionally, it must be considered that Article 12 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales - which is the norm used in the criteria of the Registry Tribunal - does not require the presentation of documentation in physical form, but rather regulates the possibility for the parties in a judicial process to send information by telematic means or other technological systems that the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) enables for these purposes, as currently occurs with the judicial electronic file system or "Online Management" ("Gestión en Línea"). The numeral under comment says: “…Article 12.- Response and reply to notifications. Those who intervene in a process may conduct proceedings before the court through electronic, computer, telematic, or other similar means, which allow the sending of the communication and its normal reception, in such a way that its authenticity is guaranteed, in the manner arranged by the Superior Council of the Judiciary. The electronic, computer, telematic, or other similar means must be accessible to screen readers for the blind…” (Highlighting). As can be observed, it is only in those cases where the authenticity of the information cannot be guaranteed that the information not transmitted by telematic means may then be rebutted. Thus, this Tribunal considers that there was actually no certain or legal reason for the Industrial Property Registry to demand the presentation of the physical document of the special administrative power of attorney as a requirement to accredit the representation of Ms. Azofeifa González, since the copy already sent via fax was sufficient for that purpose, rendering improper the consideration that, by the mere condition of being a physical copy, it was unsuitable for that purpose. To all this, we must add that, as has been demonstrated in proven facts (hechos probados) no. 11 and 21, the original power of attorney was subsequently presented and received by the Industrial Property Registry, meaning we are in the presence of a requirement of a formality for formality's sake, contrary to everything cited above, but especially to Article 223 LGAP: “…Only the omission of substantial formalities of the procedure shall cause nullity of what has been acted upon…”. Thus, without a founded reason to doubt the authenticity or integrity of the document sent via fax, the majority of the Tribunal considers that the Administration's actions of demanding the presentation of such a physical document as a requirement, and subsequently rejecting the appeals and the registration procedure as a result of the failure to meet that requirement, then became an unnecessary measure and thereby unreasonable and disproportionate according to the foregoing. Ergo, the administrative acts by which an end was put to those administrative procedures become substantially non-compliant with the administrative legal order due to lack of grounds, that is, because the factual and legal antecedents that allow the exercise of competence for the specific case are missing, thereby impeding the action of the Public Administration, since there would be no legitimate cause for the exercise of the administrative function by its agents. Moreover, it is worth clarifying that, since this Tribunal does not question the need to accredit the representation and since it is also not relevant whether or not the document in question has the character of an electronic document, it is then possible to dispense with the allegations related to the application to the specific case of Articles 103 of the Código Procesal Civil and 3 of the Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, which are not pertinent, nor do they affect the conclusion that, in effect, the Administration acts contrary to Law by demanding compliance with a requirement that the acting party here had already adequately satisfied in the procedure carried out before that Office, or at least, without there being a founded opposition beyond its mere character as a simple copy. Consequently, and in accordance with everything stated above, the claim must be upheld in all its aspects, declaring the nullity of the administrative acts of both procedures, by which the requirement for the original document of the special administrative power of attorney was made, as well as the final acts by which the rejection of the filed administrative appeals was ordered, such that the Industrial Property Registry must issue a new ruling regarding these as corresponds in Law and within the legal timeframes, through a due communication of the respective act to the means of notification appearing in the administrative files. Finally, it is worth clarifying with this ruling that the Section is not pronouncing on the merits of the administrative procedure, given that the purpose of the nullity declared herein lies in the acts by which deliberation on the administrative appeals filed against the final acts of both trademark registration procedures was rejected, and it is now the Administration's responsibility to appropriately resolve them in that venue." Goicoechea, at ten hours and twenty-five minutes on the thirtieth of August, two thousand nineteen.- Contentious-administrative and civil treasury proceeding initiated by **Nombre136138**, holder of identity card number CED108078, represented by Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special judicial attorney (provided with the document received via fax on May 18, 2016), against **THE STATE**, represented by the prosecutor Alejandro Arce Oses (appearance received on July 29, 2016) and the **ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL REGISTRY**, represented by Nombre82113, in their capacity as Deputy General Director of the National Registry, and Nombre20087, Nombre1846, Nombre116122, and Nombre2405, all of these in their capacity as special judicial attorneys (see legal standing and document uploaded to the electronic judicial file on the twenty-sixth of August, two thousand nineteen).- **WHEREAS:** **I.-** **PRELIMINARY ASPECTS, DELIBERATION AND VOTE.-** As of last October 8th, Law No. 9342 came into effect, corresponding to the complete reform of the Civil Procedure Code, which in turn is the normative body that regulates the formalities of jurisdictional resolutions. Therefore, this ruling adapts to the new legal provisions, as observed in Transitory Provision I of said Law and in accordance with Article 2.18 of the Full Court circular number 96-2018 "Practical Rules for the Application of the New Civil Procedure Code," adopted in article XII of session number 38-18 of August 13, 2018. Likewise, the parties are informed that because the proceeding being resolved was partially processed digitally, it is recorded that the judicial orders also comply with the provisions of the regulation on the Electronic Judicial File before the Judicial Branch, approved by the Full Court in article XXXI of session No. 22-13, held on May 20, 2013. Pursuant to numerals 10 and 11 of said Regulation, it is clarified that in the event of citing a folio number or image of any document belonging to the judicial file, it refers to physical or scanned folios prior to the commencement of the electronic file in the Office. To refer to documents entered after that moment, only their date of presentation or production will be indicated. Equally, and pursuant to the principle of functional equivalence established in numeral 11 of that Regulation, the parties are informed that the use of digital extracts of digitized documents provided by the parties to the judicial file is in accordance with the Law, since according to that rule *"...they have the same evidentiary force as the originals..."*. Lastly, **it is recorded that this resolution is issued after the respective deliberation, with the drafting of the vote in charge of the reporting judge, Judge Aguilar Méndez, with the concurring opinion and vote of the judges Abarca Gómez and Garita Navarro. Judge Abarca Gómez dissents and Judge Aguilar Méndez adds a note.-** **II.-** **PRELIMINARY MATTER.-** This Chamber considers it convenient to make a few brief clarifications regarding the evidence admitted to the proceedings. In the first place, to indicate that in the minutes of the preliminary hearing, the information of the evidence admitted to the plaintiff was incorrectly recorded, since when listening to the recording, it is appreciated that in this regard the party clearly stated that the documents that they had previously provided with the complaint were contained in the certified copy of the administrative file: *"...indeed the evidence we present is eminently documentary evidence, we have no testimonial evidence and, by the way, the documentary evidence is also not controversial and is contained in the digital file that the defendant presented..."* (listen from minute 07:10 to 07:24 of the hearing recording; highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, there is no evidence in the proceedings that must be evaluated by this Court outside of the administrative files, except for that relating to the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 11:49:07 on October 30, 2015, and its notification, which are not contained in administrative file 2014-007735. Likewise, it is worth clarifying that as heard from the recording of the hearing and corroborated in the electronic judicial file, the certified copy of the administrative files corresponds only to two digital files in *Acrobat Reader* format named: "2014-7734.pdf" and "2014-7735.pdf", since although they were provided on various occasions, they are the same digital files.- **III.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.-** In the specific case and as was determined during the preliminary hearing of this matter held on August 9, 2017, the **claims** brought by the plaintiff consist of the following: *"...PETITION: 1. Declare the absolute nullity of the resolution at 14:48:10 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution at 10:25:09 on 9/24/2015; as well as the resolution at 14:16:50 on August 12, 2015; and consequently the absolute nullity of the resolution at 11:01:21 on 9/24/2015; all of them from the Industrial Property Registry. 2. ORDER THE DEFENDANT to acknowledge and respond to the APPEALS FOR REVERSAL WITH SUBSIDIARY APPEAL, filed by this representation, regarding the resolution at 15:31:36 on 6/25/2015; and regarding the resolution at 10:27:47 on 6/11/2015; both from the INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY REGISTRY, so that the corresponding trademark registration process continues. 3. I request that the defendant be ordered to pay* [...] *both costs, and subsidiarily in case your authority considers that I am not right in this complaint, I request to be exonerated from the payment of costs due to the good faith of this process...".* The plaintiff, in general terms, argues in her complaint that the decision of the Industrial Property Registry to require her, in the administrative process of two trademark registration applications, to provide a special administrative power of attorney in its physical or original version is inconsistent with the legal system. She adduces two reasons for this: on one hand, that there is no legal rule that supports the requirement and therefore, it becomes unreasonable and arbitrary; and on the other, that according to article 3 of the Law on Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents, the copy of the power of attorney transmitted via fax constitutes a document functionally equivalent to the original, making the Administration's requirement an unnecessary burden for the administered party, by forcing her to duplicate the process, which she considers violates the Law on Simplification of Procedures. - **The State and the Administrative Board of the National Registry** **respond negatively** and both oppose the substantive exception of lack of legal standing, requesting that the action be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs and the interest they generate. Both representations adduce the same allegations, consisting, first, that the articles cited by the plaintiff do not justify the transmission by telematic means of documents whose presentation is indispensable in a specific condition within the process, such as the determination of procedural capacity, under the protection of pronouncements of the Administrative Registral Tribunal, article 103 of the Civil Procedure Code and article 12 of the Law on Judicial Notifications, the latter referred exclusively to documents. They consider that in that sense, the Industrial Property Registry was obliged to verify through a suitable document whether Mr. Vargas Solano was or was not authorized to act in the process and if he possessed sufficient capacity to file the challenges presented, so that in the absence of accreditation, what was appropriate was the rejection of the action. In the second place, they argue that articles 9 and 13 of the Trademark Law and article 54 subsection a) of its Regulation establish the obligation to present the corresponding power of attorney and the power of the Administration to prevent it, issue the corresponding resolutions, and require the interested parties to provide additional documents necessary to resolve. Finally, they consider that article 3 of the Law on Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents is inapplicable, as we are not faced with a document of that nature, nor any of the cases regulated therein.- **IV.- PROVEN FACTS.-** Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated according to sound rational criticism, whether they emerge from the body of evidence provided and admitted in this process, or because the parties have accepted them:

***Facts related to the registration process of a distinctive sign with administrative file number 2014-0007734*** 1) On September 8, 2014, Mrs. Nombre136138 filed before the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry an application for registration of the trademark *"S&S VLCM Clothing"*, under administrative file number 2014-007734. In the application, she indicated as the means for receiving notifications the fax number 2669-1452 (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *"2014-7734.pdf"*); 2) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the application filed by the plaintiff here was presented by Mr. Nombre111676 on behalf of the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 17 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *"2014-7734.pdf"*); 3) On January 30, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 answered the opposition that had been filed and indicated as the primary means for receiving notifications the email: "...3905" and subsidiarily the fax number 2237-6896 (f. 116 to 124 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *"2014-7734.pdf"*); 4) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 15:12:50 on May 18, 2015, it was ordered, in what is relevant: *"...II. The opposition filed by the attorney of Nombre136139, against the application for registration of the trademark "S & S VLCM Clothing", filed by Nombre136138, on a personal basis, is declared without merit, which in this act is accepted...".* This resolution was notified to the plaintiff here at fax number 2669-1452, on May 22, 2015 (f. 125 to 139 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *"2014-7734.pdf"*); 5) On May 28, 2015, the representative of the company Volcom, Inc. filed an appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal against the resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 15:12:50 on May 18, 2015, cited above (f. 168 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file "2014-7734.pdf"); 6) In the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 15:31:36 on June 25, 2015, it was ordered, in what is relevant: *"...I. To grant the appeal for reversal filed by Nombre111676, attorney of Volcom Inc., against the resolution issued by this instance at 15:12:50 on May 18, 2015, which is reversed, and the opposition filed by the attorney of Volcom, Inc., against the application for registration of the trademark "S & S VLCM Clothing", filed by Nombre136138, on a personal basis, is declared with merit, which in this act is rejected..."*. This resolution was notified to Mrs. Nombre136138 on Friday, July 24, 2015 (f. 227 to 234 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file "2014-7734.pdf"); 7) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 proceeded to file via fax an appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal against the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 15:31:36 on June 25, 2015. Said action was carried out through a special administrative attorney, the lawyer Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, who indicated as the means for receiving notifications the fax 2572-1360.

In this act, Attorney Vargas Solano also proceeded to submit a copy of his special power of attorney, which can be seen in the following digital excerpt: ----------</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><img src=\" La Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante Voto 4654-2003, analizó la relación entre el Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento, y la Ley Forestal, específicamente en lo concerniente a los requisitos para la obtención de permisos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) en terrenos con forest cover (cobertura boscosa).

En su análisis, la Sala señaló que el Anexo 1 y el Anexo 2 de dicho decreto establecen parámetros técnicos que deben ser verificados por instituciones como el MINAE, el SINAC, y la SETENA. Particularmente, el Considerando III del Voto 4654-2003 enfatiza la obligatoriedad de presentar un environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) cuando el proyecto de subdivision (fraccionamiento) implique un land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) que afecte áreas bajo el régimen del Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA).

Asimismo, el Voto 4654-2003 determina que entidades como el INVU y la municipalidad respectiva deben coordinar con el MINAE y la SETENA para asegurar que los permisos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) no contravengan lo dispuesto en la Ley Forestal y el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento. El Por tanto de la resolución ordena la anulación de actos administrativos que hubiesen omitido la consulta obligatoria a estas instituciones técnicas.

The applicant is seeking environmental viability for the project identified as "Reforma Integral para la Legalización de Uso Comercial" (Comprehensive Reform for the Legalization of Commercial Use), located in the district of Santa Cruz, Turrialba, and canton of Turrialba, province of Cartago. The project proposes to formalize an existing commercial use within a property that has a total area of 38,764.88 m² and a current forest cover (cobertura boscosa) of 22,130.71 m², for the operation of a restaurant and a tourist lodge with cabins, which have been in operation since 2013. The project includes the operation of 28 accommodation units (21 cabins and 7 glamping units), a house for the administrator, a restaurant, an events room, a storage warehouse, a laundry facility, a camping and parking area, green zones, and an access road.

The project's initial construction phase generated earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and land-use changes (cambio de uso del suelo) that date back more than 10 years. The land-use capacity analysis determined that the area for the tourism project is located on Class VIII lands, a use that is allowed according to the land-use map of the Turrialba Municipality's Regulatory Plan. The economic activity has been carried out without requiring the cutting or removal of forest cover. The project is completely outside of the Forest Reserve and the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Protection Zone. The project does not require an environmental feasibility study from the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA). According to the site visit conducted by the Turrialba-Cartago Subregional Office (Sede Subregional Turrialba-Cartago) of the Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Central, ACC), the tourist business was already built and operating, with 100% of its infrastructure operational.

The project is located near a river. In the results of the field verification carried out by the Central Conservation Area (ACC), the presence of two springs (nacientes) was identified on the property. However, it was determined that the project has a protection area for these springs, and all existing infrastructure, including the cabins, is located outside of this protection zone, thus complying with Art. 33 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal).

Regarding waste management, the project has a treatment system: gray water receives primary and secondary treatment, and black water receives tertiary treatment. The quality of the discharges complies with the limits established in the Regulation for the Discharge and Reuse of Wastewater (Reglamento de Vertido y Reuso de Aguas Residuales), as verified by laboratory tests. Treated water is used for irrigation of green areas, and the hydration of guests and staff is supplied by the ASADA Guadalupe de Santa Cruz. The management of ordinary waste is handled through the municipality's collection service, while recyclable waste is delivered to a collection center. The environmental management measures to be applied correspond to the corrective Environmental Adjustment Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental, PGA), included as an environmental commitment in Annex 1 (Anexo 1).

Considering the background, the project does not fall within the categories that require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), in accordance with Art. 12 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Environmental Viability Regulations of SETENA, and Art. 19 of the General Regulations on EIA Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA). The environmental diagnostic analysis determines that the viability of the project is, from a technical and legal standpoint, the only completely legal path for environmental adaptation, and therefore, it is recommended to grant environmental viability.

The applicant formalized its environmental commitment to comply with all environmental management measures established in Annexes 1, 2, and 3 of Resolution 2373-2021-SETENA, as well as the technical criteria of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, ACCVC) – ACC and other competent institutions. In compliance with the provisions of Transitory I of the Regulations for the Environmental Viability of SETENA, the company was notified of the technical report.

Los agentes generadores solicitarán a la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE la concesión de la fuente que abastece dichos asentamientos, en cumplimiento de lo establecido en la **Ley de Aguas** y sus reformas.

**ARTÍCULO 10.-** En el caso de las urbanizaciones residenciales, los parámetros que se deben cumplir en sus diseños, para evitar y mitigar las amenazas naturales y sus impactos en los caminos de acceso y en los terrenos en donde se ubicarán los proyectos, son los siguientes:

Section 2 of 2 of the Set of Supplementary Environmental Adjustments and Territorial Regulations for the Cantonal Regulatory Plan of Pérez Zeledón (Plan Regulador Cantonal de Pérez Zeledón), on the lands defined by the cantonal urban development boundary (límite de crecimiento urbano cantonal) and the surrounding regulated cantonal urban perimeter (perímetro urbano cantonal regulado aledaño), according to what is technically established in the Set of Plans [translation of "Juego de Planos"] and [translation of "Reglamento de Fraccionamiento"] subdivision regulations; [translation of "Vialidad"] road network; [translation of "Zonificación"] zoning; [translation of "Reglamento de Construcciones"] building regulations; and [translation of "Reglamento para la tramitación de permisos y la revisión de anteproyectos del Cantón de Pérez Zeledón"] regulations for permit processing and preliminary project review of the Canton of Pérez Zeledón.

Los procesos relativos a las solicitudes de fraccionamiento (subdivision) y urbanización serán presentados a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) como un proyecto de evaluación de impacto ambiental, mediante el formulario denominado D1, conforme las disposiciones del Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo 31849.

SETENA, en uso de las facultades del artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley 7554, y del artículo 17 de su Reglamento General de EIA, analizará integralmente los estudios de impacto ambiental, con el fin de que las actividades de fraccionamiento (subdivision) y urbanización se lleven a cabo con apego al principio de desarrollo sostenible y ordenamiento territorial.

<p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> (f.

245 to 258 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 8) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, the applicant was warned that within a period of ten business days *"...counted from the business day following this notification, she must provide the original of the power of attorney that accredits her to act within this file. It is warned that failure to comply with this requirement will result in the motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación) being rejected due to lack of procedural capacity..."*. This act was attempted to be notified to Ms. Nombre136138 in five attempts, three of them made on August 14 and two on August 17, both dates in 2015, to fax number 2572-1360, with unsuccessful results in all of them: "Busy / No Answer" (f. 259 to 267 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 9) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: *"...Based on the foregoing and cited legal provisions, IT IS RESOLVED:* ***To Reject as inadmissible the Motions for Reversal and Subsidiary Appeal (Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio) filed*** *against the resolution at 15:31:36 hours on June 25, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, attorney-in-fact for Nombre136138 . , in the application file for registration of the trademark “S & S VLCM Clothing”, in class 25..."* (Highlighting not in the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (f. 271 to 276 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 10) By means of a brief without a legible received stamp, nor a date of preparation or signature, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special administrative attorney-in-fact for Nombre136138, filed a motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal and a concomitant motion to nullify (incidente de nulidad) with respect to the resolution at 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered as a means of notification fax number 2573-4350 and, subsidiarily, the email address ...3906 (f. 283 to 286 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 11) With a received date of October 13, 2015, lawyer Vargas Solano physically attached a special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Ms. Nombre136138 (f. 287 to 288 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); 12) In an administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015, the motions for reversal with subsidiary appeal and the concomitant motion to nullify that had been filed were declared without merit. This act was notified to the plaintiff here at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (f. 290 to 293 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007734 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7734.pdf”*); ***Facts related to the registration procedure for a distinctive sign with administrative case file number 2014-0007735*** 13) On September 8, 2014, Ms. Nombre136138 filed before the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry an application for registration of the trademark "*Volsurf & Comskate*", under administrative case file number 2014-007735. She indicated there, as a means for receiving notifications, fax number 2669-1452 (f. 01 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 14) On December 8, 2014, an opposition to the plaintiff's application was filed by Mr. Nombre111676, representing the company Volcom, Inc. (f. 35 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 15) On February 5, 2015, Ms. Nombre136138 responded to the opposition that had been filed and indicated as the primary means for receiving notifications in both proceedings, the email address: “...3905” and, subsidiarily, fax number 2237-6896 (f. 82 to 91 of the certified copy of administrative case file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file *“2014-7735.pdf”*); 16) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015, it was ordered, in the pertinent part: *“…II. The opposition filed by the attorney-in-fact for VOLCOM, INC., against the application for registration of the trademark* "*Volsurf & Comskate*"*, filed by Nombre136138, in her personal capacity, is declared with merit, and said application is hereby rejected…”.* Esta resolución fue notificada a la aquí actora en dos ocasiones distintas: primero, al fax número 2669-1452, el día 19 de junio de 2015 y posteriormente, el día viernes 24 de julio de 2015, sin que en este caso conste el medio al cual se practicó la comunicación, según se aprecia en la siguiente acta de notificación:----- This resolution was notified to the plaintiff herein on two separate occasions: first, to fax number 2669-1452, on June 19, 2015, and subsequently, on Friday, July 24, 2015, without it being recorded in this instance by what means the communication was made, as can be seen in the following notification record:----- Forest coverage (cobertura boscosa) (Anexo 1) is a restrictive protection measure of the Law, temporary and an environmental technical parameter for forests (bosques). It differs from lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad), a principle of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), absolute and spatial in nature, a direct consequence of the Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA). Article 19 of the Forestry Law defines forest coverage as the "determining factor for the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of any project," and its objective is to "ensure the forest coverage of the land to be used is maintained or restored, a criterion that must be considered in the evaluation of the project." This coverage is cataloged by the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and constitutes a technical parameter that restricts land clearing activities. In contrast, lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad), derived from Decree No. 31849-MINAE, is of a legal nature, immovable and absolute, protecting the entire forest cover area irrespective of its temporary status; prohibiting land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), subdivision (fraccionamiento), and urban or agricultural development in perpetuity.

Considerando III.—De la Ley Forestal, su Reglamento y las regulaciones del Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) se desprende que, para acceder al PSA, es indispensable acreditar la propiedad del inmueble y que el mismo cuente con cobertura boscosa. Asimismo, se requiere la inscripción del contrato de PSA en el Registro Público y la acreditación de la realización de actividades de protección y conservación del bosque. En el caso del PSA por protección de bosque, se exige una lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) de la cobertura boscosa por el plazo del contrato, lo que implica una limitación al derecho de propiedad, pues el propietario se obliga a mantener el bosque y a no realizar land-use changes (cambio de uso del suelo). Esta limitación debe estar debidamente inscrita en el Registro Público para que sea oponible a terceros, tal y como lo establece el Artículo 19 de la Ley Forestal. En consecuencia, la omisión de este requisito registral conlleva la imposibilidad de oponer la limitación a terceros adquirentes del inmueble, lo cual podría generar conflictos en caso de una eventual enajenación del predio, tal y como se indica en el Voto 4654-2003.

Considerando III.—That it is demonstrated, based on the technical criterion from the General Directorate of Geology and Mines, the competent institutional authority on the subject, on the effects that ongoing and future extractive activities will have on the subsoil, the soil, the flora, the fauna, the underground and surface water, and the air, within the area under study, as well as the measures to mitigate, compensate, and rehabilitate these environmental impacts.

Por tanto.—The environmental viability is hereby granted for the Mining Exploitation Concession of Cerro Cruces, file No. 11818, submitted by the company Metales Procesados M.R.W. S.A., holder of identity card No. 3-101-192736, located in the district of Cañas, canton of Cañas, province of Guanacaste, with a valid area of one hundred twenty-two hectares, thirty-six point forty-nine square meters (122 ha 36.49 m²), and an extraction depth of seventy-five meters (75 m) below the surface of the extraction site, for a period of ten years, counting from the moment this resolution becomes final, for which the company must present the certification of the environmental deposit guarantee, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Environmental Law, for an amount that covers the costs of implementing the closure and post-closure plan of the project and any damages that, through verified fault or negligence, it may cause to human health or the environment, for an amount of eleven million three hundred fifty-one thousand seventy-eight dollars, United States currency ($11,351,078.00), which must be updated annually, prior to the issuance of the environmental permit by SETENA, and must also comply with the following commitments:

| --- | --- | | Environmental Measure | Schedule | | 1. Environmental Management Program | Will be made available to the environmental regulator as soon as the environmental permit is issued. | | 2. Monitoring Plan | Will be made available to the environmental regulator as soon as the environmental permit is issued. | | 3. Communications Program | Will be made available to the environmental regulator as soon as the environmental permit is issued. | | 4. Occupational Safety and Health Program | Will be made available to the environmental regulator as soon as the environmental permit is issued. | | 5. Closure and Post-Closure Plan | Will be made available to the environmental regulator during the project implementation phase. | The Mining Exploitation Concession of Cerro Cruces, file No. 11818, is approved with a production capacity of one thousand (1000) tonnes per day of extracted and processed mineral material.

ARTICLE 5. To execute forest cover (cobertura boscosa) recovery actions in protection areas, the State institutions must coordinate with the enforcement authority of the Ley Forestal and request technical criteria.

In the case of public aqueducts, aquifer recharge zones, and springs (nacientes) that supply these systems, they must retain the forest area defined as a protection zone, either through property registration or by establishing conservation easements (servidumbres), under the regulations of the Ley Forestal. They must also delimit the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) area and register it in the Property Registry.

In the ecosystems established in categories II, III, and IV of Article 6, the Environmental Water Canon, from its collection, must integrate the corresponding percentage of payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA). This must be directed exclusively to the protection of the water resource by the enforcement authority of the Ley Forestal.

Del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, folio 390-396, artículo 22 de la Ley Forestal. En el presente caso, con un área de 4.83 km², es viable establecer una modificación del uso del suelo (cambio de uso del suelo) en áreas de producción agropecuaria e infraestructura.

Cuadro de Áreas de Infraestructura

Artículo 6.- De la prohibición del fraccionamiento y segregación de terrenos rurales: De conformidad con la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, Ley 7779, y en función de proteger y hacer irredutible el uso del suelo en fincas rurales, se prohíbe la segregación y el fraccionamiento de terrenos en suelo rural.

El Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanización del INVU, Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, y sus reformas, en lo que fuera aplicable a la materia forestal y de protección de recursos hídricos, establece limitaciones expresas en cuanto a la subdivisión (fraccionamiento) que atenten contra la cobertura boscosa, los nacientes (nacientes) y las áreas de protección de cauces de dominio público que hayan sido declaradas como tales por la Autoridad Reguladora correspondiente.

En todo trámite de subdivisión (fraccionamiento) de inmuebles en suelo rural, el propietario gestionante deberá presentar, como requisito de admisibilidad, un certificado de uso conforme del suelo emitido por el MINAE o por la institución en quien éste delegue, que acredite que el inmueble sujeto a subdivisión (fraccionamiento) no se encuentra dentro de las limitaciones establecidas en el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal, Ley 7575, referente a áreas de protección de nacientes (nacientes), ni que la subdivisión (fraccionamiento) atente contra la cobertura boscosa en los términos que dicta la Ley 7575 y su Reglamento.

En aquellos casos en los que se determine que la finca matriz posee cobertura boscosa o nacientes (nacientes) dentro de su delimitación, la segregación o subdivisión (fraccionamiento) que se pretenda realizar deberá respetar la lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) de dichas áreas.

La presente directriz rige a partir de su publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, y deroga cualquier disposición administrativa de igual o inferior rango que se le oponga.

Artículo 6.—Prohibiciones. Se prohíbe, en terrenos cubiertos de bosque, cambiar el uso del suelo, así como realizar earthworks (movimientos de tierra), cortar, dañar, eliminar o destruir árboles, arbustos, productos o subproductos forestales, y efectuar cualquier manejo forestal, salvo que se cuente con la viabilidad (licencia) ambiental emitida por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) o con un plan de manejo forestal aprobado por la Administración Forestal del Estado (AFE), conforme a lo dispuesto en la Ley Forestal (Ley N° 7575), su Reglamento, y demás normativa aplicable. Asimismo, se prohíben las construcciones de cualquier tipo y los procesos de subdivision (fraccionamiento) de terrenos con cobertura boscosa, excepto aquellos proyectos declarados de interés público o conveniencia nacional, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25721-MINAE) y sus reformas. Para el caso de áreas de protección de nacientes (springs), ríos, quebradas y lagos, se estará a lo dispuesto en el Artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal y su Reglamento, especialmente en lo concerniente a la easement (servidumbre) de protección y la lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) de estas áreas.

Ley 7575 is a Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) that, in general terms, establishes as a function of the State, through the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), to ensure the conservation and rational management of forest resources, considering the environment as a whole, not only in terms of the protection of soils, water, and wildlife, but also as a natural source of life and a decisive element for sustainable human development. It is also worth noting that the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) considers the development of a series of actions and activities related to forestry matters, such as forest management, conservation, forest cover (cobertura boscosa), land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), and payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA), among others. This is why the regulation of this law was issued through Executive Decree 25721-MINAE, called the Regulations to the Forestry Law (Reglamento a la Ley Forestal).

Considerando:

I.—Que la gestión de las solicitudes de PSA ante FONAFIFO, debe de darse de manera más ágil, con el fin de cumplir con los objetivos de la Ley Forestal. Por lo que se ha considerado necesario definir un nuevo instrumento de gestión y contratación del Pago de Servicios Ambientales, que se le denominará "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", para los proyectos cuya área de PSA sea igual o menor a diez hectáreas, o cuyo monto total de PSA en el ciclo de contratación sea igual o menor al equivalente a diez hectáreas.

II.—Que mediante Acuerdo de Junta Directiva número cinco, adoptado en la Sesión Ordinaria número cuatrocientos setenta y cinco, celebrada el quince de noviembre del año dos mil dieciséis, se aprobó la modificación del "Manual de Procedimientos para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales", incorporando dentro de sus procedimientos el "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", como un nuevo instrumento de gestión y contratación del Pago de Servicios Ambientales.

III.—Que se hace necesario oficializar los formatos del "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción", tanto para las modalidades de Protección de Bosque, como de Regeneración Natural, así como los formatos de los Anexos que formarán parte integral de dichos contratos.

Por tanto,

LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL FONDO NACIONAL DE FINANCIAMIENTO FORESTAL ACUERDA:

Artículo 1.—Aprobar los formatos del "Contrato de PSA simplificado por medio de Solicitud de Inscripción" para las modalidades de Protección de Bosque y de Regeneración Natural, de acuerdo con el siguiente detalle:

| --- | --- | | Modalidad de PSA | Formato de Contrato | | Protección de Bosque | Anexo 1 | | Regeneración Natural | Anexo 2 | Artículo 2.—Los Anexos 1 y 2, que contienen los formatos de los contratos, forman parte integral del presente Acuerdo.

Artículo 3.—Se autoriza a la Dirección Ejecutiva para que pueda realizar las modificaciones de forma que resulten necesarias a los formatos aprobados, siempre que no alteren el contenido sustancial de los mismos y en apego a lo dispuesto en el Manual de Procedimientos para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales.

Artículo 4.—Rige a partir de su publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta.

San José, a los quince días del mes de noviembre del año dos mil dieciséis.

Dado en la Sesión Ordinaria número cuatrocientos setenta y cinco.

Manuel Guerrero Salazar Luis Guillermo Jiménez Chacón Secretario de Actas Ley 7575, Ley Forestal, establishes that forested areas (cobertura boscosa) under the Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) program shall be maintained with lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad). This principle was reinforced in Voto 4654-2003.

According to Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) within these zones requires a prior environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) from SETENA. The regulations in Decreto N° 31849-MINAE, specifically Art. 19, outline the specific criteria for the EIA, including the evaluation of impacts on water springs (nacientes) and the establishment of protection easements (servidumbre).

In Considerando III of the technical report, SINAC, through its regional office ACOSA, confirmed that the proposed subdivision (fraccionamiento) by the developer, INVU, as per the Reglamento de Fraccionamiento, would not affect the PSAH area designated in Anexo 1. However, ICAA noted in their technical opinion that the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) required for the project, detailed in Anexo 2, necessitate additional hydrological studies to be reviewed by ICE and MOPT.

The final resolution, according to the Por tanto section, mandates that the project proponent must secure a feasibility certification from CONARE regarding the environmental viability study. This condition is precedent to the approval of the land-use change by the municipality of JASEC. Furthermore, the developer must present risk assessment reports from CNE, IMN, and IGN to INDER for the final approval of the subdivision.

Artículo 6. — Para el otorgamiento de la licencia municipal de construcción en terrenos que presenten cobertura boscosa o que sean aptos para el bosque, de acuerdo con los criterios del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) y la cartografía oficial del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), la municipalidad respectiva deberá solicitar al interesado, como requisito previo e indispensable, la presentación de la autorización de corta de árboles o del estudio de impacto ambiental (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), según corresponda, emitidos por la autoridad ambiental competente.

Se exceptúan de este requisito las áreas dedicadas a la agricultura, ganadería o cualquier otro uso debidamente consolidado antes de la entrada en vigencia de la Ley Forestal, Ley 7575, siempre que se demuestre fehacientemente el cambio de uso del suelo (land-use change) ante la municipalidad, mediante certificación emitida por el SINAC o la autoridad del MINAE, con base en fotografías aéreas, imágenes satelitales u otros medios probatorios idóneos. El Reglamento a esta ley definirá los procedimientos y criterios técnicos correspondientes.

Las autorizaciones de corta en terrenos de dominio privado que se encuentren bajo el régimen de Pago de Servicios Ambientales (PSA) o cualquier otro programa de conservación estatal, deberán contar, además, con el visto bueno del ente administrador del respectivo programa o contrato.

Para los efectos anteriores, el MINAE, a través del SINAC, mantendrá un sistema de información geográfica actualizado de la cobertura boscosa del país, el cual será de acceso público y vinculante para las municipalidades, tal como lo establece el Decreto Ejecutivo 25721 y sus reformas.

<p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> (f.</span></p> 92 to 103, 125 and 126 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 17) On July 29, 2015, Mrs. Nombre136138 proceeded to file, via fax, a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal against the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 10:27:47 hours on June 11, 2015. She conducted this action through a special administrative representative, attorney Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, and indicated fax 2572-1360 as the means for receiving notifications, and additionally requested “...I also be sent via text message the existence of notifications to cell phone 88-13-55-89...”. In that act, attorney Vargas Solano also proceeded to send a copy of his special power of attorney (pp. 127 to 138 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 18) By means of an administrative resolution issued at 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, the Industrial Property Registry ordered the applicant to submit the original of the special power of attorney within a period of ten business days (an undisputed fact and pp. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 19) By administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015, the following was ordered: “...Based on the foregoing and cited legal provisions, IT IS RESOLVED: To Reject as inadmissible the Motions for Revocation and Subsidiary Appeal filed, against the resolution of 10:27:47 hours of June 11, 2015, by Roy L. Vargas Solano, representative of Nombre136138 , in the file for the application for registration of the trademark ‘Volsurf & Comskate’, in class 25...” (Highlighting not from the original). This act was notified to the plaintiff herein at fax 2572-1360 on September 30, 2015 (pp. 139 to 144 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 20) By means of a document received on October 6, 2015, Mr. Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, in his capacity as special administrative representative of Nombre136138 , filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal and a concomitant motion to nullify with respect to the resolution of 11:01:21 hours of September 24, 2015. On that occasion, he offered fax number 2573-4350 and, alternatively, email ...3906 as the means of notification (pp. 150 to 153 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); 21) With a receipt date of October 13, 2015, attorney Vargas Solano physically attached a special administrative power of attorney granted in his favor by Mrs. Nombre136138 (pp. 166 and 167 of the certified copy of administrative file number 2014-007735 contained in the electronic file “2014-7735.pdf”); and 22) In an administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015, the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal and the concomitant motion to nullify that had been filed were declared without merit. This act was notified to the plaintiff herein at fax 2572-1360 on November 4, 2015 (An undisputed fact and documents provided with the complaint and admitted during the preliminary hearing).- **V.- UNPROVEN FACTS.-** Of use for this judgment, the following facts are deemed not demonstrated, either because the parties failed to meet their evidentiary burdens, or because the Office did not find suitable evidence that, in light of sound criticism, would allow them to be credited: **1.-** The notification of the administrative resolution of the Industrial Property Registry issued at 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, adopted within administrative file 2014-007735.- **2.-** The existence of well-founded doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the special administrative power of attorney sent by fax to administrative files No. 2014-007735 and 2014-007735, corresponding to the applications for registration of trademarks by the plaintiff herein.- **VI.- ON THE MERITS.-** Having seen and analyzed the arguments used by the parties in this matter, this Court considers that the plaintiff is correct, specifically, regarding the restrictions that Administrations have regarding the simplification and rationalization of administrative procedures, since, as the plaintiff indeed cites and as will be explained below, the requirements for administrative petitions are governed by a principle of exhaustiveness, rationality, and simplicity, in addition to other procedural principles that give priority to the substance of the action, such as informalism and *in dubio pro actione*, all of which lead, as we shall see, to the Administration having to channel administrative procedures toward their due and prompt resolution in an effective, efficient, simple, continuous manner adapted to the needs of the service, giving prevalence to the analysis of the merits of the actions, so that inadmissibility based on form can only be applicable insofar as it deals solely and exclusively with prerequisites of indispensable verification. The General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) accounts for this orientation in its numerals 4, 223, 224, and 269.1, as well as the doctrine that permeates Law No. 8220 of March 4, 2002, the Law for the Protection of Citizens from the Excess of Requirements and Administrative Procedures (Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos). Firstly, constitutional jurisprudence has been clear and concise in developing, based mainly on Article 4 of the General Public Administration Law, a series of constitutional-level principles that must characterize administrative functioning, particularly when dealing with so-called bureaucratic procedures: **“III.- CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY, AND CELERITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION.** The Political Constitution, in its organic part, includes or enunciates some guiding principles of the administrative function and organization, which as such must orient, direct, and condition all public administrations in their daily work. Among such principles, effectiveness, efficiency, simplicity, and celerity stand out (articles –all from the Political Constitution– 140, subsection 8, insofar as it imposes on the Executive Branch the duty to ‘Monitor the proper functioning of administrative services and dependencies’, 139, subsection 4, to the extent that it incorporates the concept of ‘proper operation of the Government’, and 191, as it embodies the principle of ‘efficiency of the administration’). These constitutional-level principles have been developed by infra-constitutional regulations; thus, the General Public Administration Law includes them in Articles 4, 225, paragraph 1, and 269, paragraph 1, and **mandates that they must orient and nourish all administrative organization and function.** **Effectiveness as a principle supposes that the administrative organization and function must be designed and conceived to guarantee the achievement of the objectives, ends, and goals proposed and assigned by the legal system itself, which must be linked to planning and evaluation or accountability** (Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution). Efficiency implies obtaining the best results with the greatest cost savings or the rational use of human, material, technological, and financial resources. **Simplicity demands that administrative structures and their competences be easy to comprehend and understand, without convoluted procedures that delay the satisfaction of the public interests at stake. For its part, celerity obliges public administrations to fulfill their objectives and ends of satisfying public interests, through the various mechanisms, in the most expeditious, rapid, and accurate manner possible to avoid undue delays.** This set of principles imposes permanent demands, responsibilities, and duties on all public entities that they cannot decline on a transitory or singular basis […] **Thus, when the Public Administration performs its function and processes matters of interest to the administered parties, it must refrain from demanding excessive requirements from the administered parties, especially when these lack normative backing, which hinder procedures and violate the fundamental rights of the administered parties…”** (Highlighting not from the original. See judgment No. 2007-15849 of 17:59 hours of October 31, 2007. In the same sense: 2003-11382 of 15:11 hours of October 7, 2003, 2005-05600 of 16:34 hours of May 10, 2005, 2012-06859 of 15:32 hours of May 23, 2012, 2015-04295 of 09:30 hours of March 27, 2015 and 2017-07259 of 09:45 hours of May 19, 2017, among others). Now, the universe of authorizations, permits, or administrative petitions of diverse nature that have practical relevance in people's lives in their relationship with public institutions or entities has come to be known colloquially in our field as “administrative procedures”, “red tape”, or bureaucracy; and it is precisely in that sector of administrative functioning where the application of these constitutional principles has the greatest significance. Thus, through the Law for the Protection of Citizens from the Excess of Requirements and Administrative Procedures, the legislator has attempted to link constitutional jurisprudence with the daily work of the Administrations, establishing a series of limits on them regarding the management of these procedures and, at the same time, granting a series of procedural rights to the administered parties, which as a whole aims to provide people with certainty regarding what and to what extent the public institutional framework can demand from them in addressing their requests, in the form of requirements and their qualification. Within the articles of this law, and of importance for the resolution of the present matter, it is worth transcribing the following: “…Article 2–Single presentation of documents. **The information that an administered party submits to an entity, organ, or official of the Public Administration may not be requested again by them for that same procedure or another within that same entity or organ.** Likewise, no public entity, organ, or official may request from the administered party information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess. [...] Article 4.- Publicity of procedures and subjection to the law. **Every procedure or requirement, regardless of its normative source, in order to be enforceable against the administered party, must: a) Be established in a law, an executive decree, or a regulation. b) Be published in the official gazette La Gaceta together with the procedure to be followed, the instructions, manuals, forms, and other corresponding documents** and be located in a visible place within the institution. Likewise, a notice referring to said publication must be published in a nationally circulated newspaper. Without prejudice to the foregoing, such procedures or requirements may be disseminated through electronic means. The citizen information office of the institutions shall be responsible for explaining to the user the requirements and the procedure for granting requests, permits, licenses, or authorizations. In the event of not having such an office, the institution must designate a department or a person for this purpose…” (Highlighting not from the original). This preamble is of utmost importance, because the Administration, specifically, the Industrial Property Registry, has based its defense on the essential nature of a requirement in an administrative procedure. So, did the presentation of the original special administrative power of attorney constitute an indispensable requirement in the trademark registration procedures of Mrs. Nombre136138? For this Court, the answer is negative, particularly considering that the power of attorney had already been submitted and received by the Industrial Property Registry through telematic means (see **proven facts No. 11 and 21**) and given that neither the Administration, nor the administrative counterpart: the company Volcom, Inc., which opposed the registration of the trademarks and was represented by its representative, Mr. Nombre111676 , had questioned either the authenticity or the integrity of the document. The respondent Administrations have alleged in the process that the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs (Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos) and its Executive Decree (Reglamento Ejecutivo) establish that the submission of the original power of attorney is a requirement of the administrative procedure and, consequently, its rejection for non-compliance is in accordance with the Law. In this regard, the articles cited by the respondents state: **Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Law No. 7978 of January 6, 2000:** “...Article 9– Application for registration. The application for registration of a trademark shall be filed before the Industrial Property Registry and shall contain the following: a) Name and address of the applicant. b) Place of constitution and domicile of the applicant, when it is a legal entity. c) Name of the legal representative, when applicable. d) Name and address of the representative in the country, when the applicant has no real and effective domicile or commercial establishment in the country. e) The trademark whose registration is requested, when it is a word mark without special script, form, or color. f) A reproduction of the trademark in the number of copies determined by the regulations of this law, when dealing with word marks with special script, form, or color, or with figurative, mixed, or three-dimensional marks with or without color. g) A translation of the trademark, when it consists of any word element with a meaning in a language other than Spanish. h) A list of the names of the products or services for which the trademark is or will be used, grouped by classes according to the Nice International Classification of Products and Services, with the indication of the class number. i) The documents or authorizations required in the cases provided for in subsections m), n), and p) of Article 7 and subsections f) and g) of Article 8 of this law, when pertinent. j) Proof of payment of the established fee. **Applicants may process before the Registry, by themselves, with the assistance of a lawyer and notary, or through a representative. When a representative carries out procedures, they must submit the corresponding power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements of Article 82 bis of this Law. If said power of attorney is already in the Industrial Property Registry, the trademark file, its name, and the application or registration number where it is located must be indicated; the representative may act only to the extent of the powers originally authorized.** When the applicant wishes to avail themselves of the priority of a prior application, they shall submit the declaration of priority and the documents referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of this law, with the registration application and within the established deadlines. The declaration of priority shall contain the following data: a) The name of the country or the regional office where the priority application was filed. b) The filing date of the priority application. c) The number of the priority application, if it has been assigned. [...] Article 13– Examination of form. **The Industrial Property Registry shall examine whether the application complies with the provisions of Article 9 of this law and the corresponding regulatory provisions,** for which it shall have a period of fifteen business days counted from the date of receipt of the application. If any of the requirements mentioned in Article 9 of this law or the corresponding regulatory provisions have not been met, **the Registry shall notify the applicant to correct the error or omission within a period of fifteen business days from the corresponding notification, with the warning that the application will be deemed abandoned...**” (Highlighting not from the original). **Regulation to the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Executive Decree No. 30233-J of February 20, 2002:** “...Article 54.- Functions of the Director. The Director of the Industrial Property Registry, or the official who legally substitutes them, shall be in charge of the following functions: a) Issue the corresponding resolutions on matters submitted for their knowledge and require from interested parties any additional documents deemed necessary to resolve...” (Highlighting not from the original). As can be seen from the norms in question, the respondent Administrations are correct in that the presentation of the power of attorney is a requirement for the administered party who requests the registration of a trademark, when acting through a representative, but none of these norms requires the presentation of the original document in its physical version, although Article 9 of the Trademark Law does refer, regarding the formal requirements of the power of attorney, to numeral 82 bis of that same legal body, which states the following: “Article 82 bis.- Power of attorney for intellectual property. In order to act on behalf of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property, **the authorization of the grantor must be obtained, in an authenticated mandate, as a minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required.** When the power of attorney is executed abroad, it may be formalized in accordance with the domestic law of the country where it is granted, and must be authenticated. **Unless otherwise provided, every representative shall be understood as authorized, sufficient, and competent to carry out all acts that the laws authorize the titleholder himself to carry out** of the corresponding intellectual or industrial property rights, before any authority, office, or public registry, for the inscription, registration, renewal, transfer, licensing, and other applicable actions, **the preservation or defense of their rights, both in administrative and judicial venues, in all their instances and incidents…**” (Highlighting not from the original). Again, this norm does not establish the obligation to submit the physical or original document of a petitioner's special administrative power of attorney; on the contrary, the minimum formality required is authentication. Therefore, and following the constitutional guidelines developed through Law No. 8220, we must next confront against these general principles those grounds that would have been given by the Administration in the administrative processing of the motion for appeal filed within the trademark registration procedures, namely, concretely, in the administrative resolutions of 14:48:10 hours (administrative file No. 2014-007734 – proven fact 8) and of 14:16:50 hours (administrative file No. 2014-007735 – proven fact 18), both dated August 12, 2015. Since both deal with the same order (prevención), we will proceed to analyze the warning carried out in the first of these, which expressly indicates the following: “…Procedural capacity: According to the records of the file in question, the appearance as representative of Mr. Roy L. Vargas Solano occurs at the appeal stage, therefore the challenger must provide the original of the special power of attorney, since what is presented is a simple copy sent by fax: which is not admissible in this case according to the Administrative Registry Court: In this specific case, not having accredited the proper procedural capacity by the Attorney […] **because he did not comply with the pertinent orders made by this Court to attach to the present file the original or certified copy of the power of attorney** appearing on page 89, which was submitted to the records via fax, to accredit his procedural capacity to intervene in the process, representing the company […] **since said power of attorney is a simple copy and in accordance with the supplementary rules that this Court applies on this matter, namely Article 12 of the Law on Judicial Notifications No.** ... refers solely to the filing of briefs via fax and other similar means, not to other types of documents whose originals or certification thereof are indispensable to demonstrate a specific situation or condition, in this case the standing of the Attorney [. . .] **to act on behalf of the company** [. . .] **in his capacity as appellant in this matter, through a suitable power-of-attorney document, which is why his actions and petition, filed before the Registry and this Tribunal, are improper, since ultimately the case file contains no suitable document accrediting his representation…**" (Emphasis not in original). As we can see, the criterion of the Industrial Property Registry rests exclusively on the criterion of a non-hierarchical oversight body, which interprets that the document relating to a power of attorney (poder) submitted via fax constitutes a simple copy and that by this condition or characteristic it loses all suitability to accredit representation, which in turn is an indispensable requirement in the administrative proceeding. For the majority of this Tribunal, that reasoning is erroneous, because a requirement of this type indeed lacks normative and factual support, and is therefore unreasonable. In the first place, we must recall that the administrative procedure is one of the many forms of exercising the administrative function, such that the supplementary application of procedural rules of a jurisdictional nature, pursuant to Articles 9 and 13 LGAP, is only legitimate in the event that no written or unwritten administrative normative source exists, since, as we saw earlier, the Law for the Protection of the Citizen against Excessive Administrative Requirements and Procedures and the principles of public service require that administrative operation must be simple, effective, and expeditious, for which the requirement in question must be provided for in a Law or Regulation and, once the information has been submitted, it “…may not be required again by those entities, for that same procedure or another within that same entity or body…”. On this point, the executive decree regulating this law, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 37045-MP-MEIC of February 22, 2012, provides: “…*Article 29—Request for Information. For their part, the organs and entities of the Public Administration subject to the application of this regulation **may not demand from citizens additional documents beyond those expressly indicated** in a law, executive decree, or a regulation for a specific procedure. **The citizen must submit, only once, the information that the Public Administration requires for the resolution of his or her procedure. The Administration may not request that these be renewed or resubmitted if the event giving rise to the document has not changed**, except in cases where, at the time of initiating the procedure, any of the documents is expired and its updating is necessary for the resolution of the procedure. In exceptional cases and when regulatory provisions so establish, the entity or organ of the Public Administration is empowered to request amplifications or additional clarifications of the documents already provided in the citizen’s application. Such a request shall be made in writing, stating the grounds, and on a one-time basis. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such power must be used restrictively, exceptionally, and when the additional document is indispensable for the resolution of the procedure…* (Emphasis not in original). As can be observed from the transcription of the Industrial Property Registry’s resolution, the sole reason to support the administrative decision lies in the fact that the document is a simple copy sent by fax, without there being any questioning of the integrity or authenticity of the document. In the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, the administered party effectively delivered the information required by the provision, namely, the accreditation of the mandate (mandato) that authorized Mr. Vargas Solano to, under the terms of Article 87 bis of the Trademark Law (Ley de Marcas), defend the petitioner’s rights in all instances of the administrative venue. In that sense, the basis used by the respondent Administration to justify its actions based on the criteria of the Administrative Registry Tribunal (Tribunal Registral Administrativo) is insufficient to counteract the imposition of the legal provision, in particular, that mandated by Ley N° 8220 and its regulation, such that for the majority of this Chamber, the request for the original documentation could only be reasonable if, through a duly reasoned act and in order to guarantee legal certainty and security (seguridad y certeza jurídicas), the Administration expressed concrete and well-founded doubts about the authenticity or integrity of the document that had been transmitted by electronic or telematic means, and not as in the present case, due to the fact that it constituted a simple copy of the document. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that Article 12 of the Judicial Notifications Law (Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales)—which is the provision used in the Administrative Registry Tribunal’s criteria—does not require the submission of documentation in physical form, but rather regulates the possibility for the parties in a **judicial** process to send information by telematic means or other technological systems that the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) enables for these purposes, as currently occurs with the judicial electronic case file system or “Gestión en Línea”. The Article under comment states: “..*Article 12.- Response and reply to notifications. Those participating in a process **may carry out proceedings before the court, through electronic, informatic, telematic, or other similar means, that allow the sending of the communication and its normal reception, in such a way that its authenticity is guaranteed, in the manner established by the Superior Council of the Judiciary**. Electronic, informatic, telematic, or other similar means must be accessible to screen readers for the visually impaired…*” (Emphasis added). As can be observed, only in those cases where the authenticity of the information cannot be guaranteed can the information not transmitted by telematic means be invalidated. Thus, this Tribunal considers that there was in fact no certain or legal reason for the Industrial Property Registry to demand the submission of the physical document of the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) as a requirement to accredit the representation of Mrs. Nombre136138, since the copy already sent via fax was sufficient, and the consideration that, by the mere condition of being a physical copy, it was unsuitable for that purpose, is improper. To all this, we must add that, as has been established in **proven facts 11 and 21**, the original power of attorney (poder) was subsequently presented and received by the Industrial Property Registry, such that we are in the presence of a requirement of a formality for formality’s sake, contrary to all of the foregoing, but especially, to Article 223 LGAP: *"...Only the omission of substantial procedural formalities shall cause nullity of the actions taken..."*. Thus, without a well-founded reason to doubt the authenticity or integrity of the document sent via fax, the majority of the Tribunal considers that the Administration’s provisions demanding the submission of such physical document as a requirement, and subsequently, the rejection of the appeals and the registration proceeding resulting from the failure to comply with that requirement, thereby became an unnecessary measure and, consequently, unreasonable and disproportionate in light of the foregoing. *Ergo*, the administrative acts by which those administrative proceedings were concluded are substantially non-compliant with the administrative legal order for lack of a rationale, that is, because the factual and legal antecedents that permit the exercise of competence for the specific case are absent, thus preventing the actions of the Public Administration, as there would be no legitimate cause for the exercise of the administrative function by its agents. Moreover, it is worth clarifying that since this Tribunal does not question the need to accredit representation and since it is also not relevant whether the document in question has the character of an electronic document or not, it is possible to dispense with the arguments relating to the application to the specific case of Articles 103 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) and 3 of the Law of Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents (Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos), which are not relevant to the case, nor do they affect the conclusion that, indeed, the Administration acted contrary to Law by demanding compliance with a requirement that the plaintiff party had already adequately satisfied in the procedure being carried out before that Office, or at least, without there being a well-founded opposition beyond its mere character as a simple copy. Therefore, and in accordance with all the foregoing, the claim must be upheld in its entirety, declaring the absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of the administrative acts of both procedures, by which the requirement of the original document of the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) was requested, as well as the final acts by which the rejection of the administrative appeals filed was ordered, such that the Industrial Property Registry must once again rule on them as appropriate in Law and within the legal time limits, through due communication of the respective act to the means of notification contained in the administrative files. Finally, it is worth clarifying that with this ruling, the Section is not ruling on the merits of the administrative proceeding, given that the object of the nullity declared here lies in the acts by which the cognizance of the administrative appeals filed against the final acts of both trademark registration procedures was rejected, and it is now incumbent upon the Administration to resolve them appropriately in that venue.- **VII.-** **ON THE RAISED DEFENSES.-** Inasmuch as both the State and the Administrative Board of the National Registry (Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional) limited their arguments to the defense of lack of right (falta de Derecho) and given that, as stated in this pronouncement, the annulment claim brought by the plaintiff has found legal basis and must be upheld as has indeed been ordered, the defense raised by the respondent Administrations must therefore be denied, as it is improper.- **VIII.-** **ON COSTS**.- In accordance with Articles 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code (Ley N° 9342), the condemnation to pay costs constitutes an obligation imposed on the losing party by the fact of being so, for the benefit of the prevailing party, in order to reimburse the latter for the various categories of expenses listed therein. Both numerals provide for various grounds for dispensation from this condemnation; therefore, in the absence of arguments or evidence allowing this Tribunal, in the specific case, to weigh and deem any of these grounds accredited, it is not possible to exempt the losing party, totally or partially, from the application of said rule, such that according to the cited provisions, the condemnation must be imposed on the losing party. In supplementary application of the provisions of Articles 61.2, 62.1 and 76.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Ley N° 9342), given that in this matter the amount of the condemnation is made in the abstract and, therefore, pending liquidation in the enforcement stage (fase de ejecución de sentencia), the determination of the amount of the costs shall be carried out at that stage, taking as a basis the total amount of the condemnation, as well as the corresponding liquidation and evidence that must be provided to the case file by the prevailing party.- **THEREFORE:** By majority, **THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF RIGHT IS DENIED** as raised by the respondents.- Consequently and by majority, **THE CLAIM IS DECLARED WITH MERIT**, filed by **Nombre136138**, against **THE STATE** and the **ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL REGISTRY**.- Therefore, the absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of the following administrative resolutions of the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry is declared: **a)** In administrative file number 2014-007734: **1.** Resolution of 14:48:10 hours on August 12, 2015, **2.** Resolution of 10:25:09 hours on September 24, 2015, and **3.** Resolution of 11:31:03 hours on October 30, 2015; and **b)** In administrative file number 2014-007735: **1.** Resolution of 14:16:50 hours on August 12, 2015, **2.** Resolution of 11:01:21 hours on September 24, 2015, and **3.** Resolution of 11:49:07 hours on October 30, 2015. Consequently, the Industrial Property Registry of the National Registry must once again rule on these administrative appeals as appropriate in Law and within the legal time limits, through due communication of the respective act to the means of notification contained in the administrative files.- The losing party is ordered to pay the full costs and interest in the terms set forth in Considerando VIII of this judgment.- Judge Abarca Gómez dissents and Judge Aguilar Méndez adds a note.-.- **Notifíquese.-** **Daniel Aguilar Méndez** **Cynthia Abarca Gómez** **Roberto Garita Navarro** **NOTE BY JUDGE AGUILAR MÉNDEZ.-** Specifically regarding the order to pay costs, although the criterion that it must indeed be imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so is unanimous, with all due respect, I differ from my colleagues regarding the abstract or liquid character of this pronouncement. Given the scant regulation that the different procedural regulatory bodies in this matter have had on this point, as was the case in the past with the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) and at present, the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, an extended supplementary application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code has occurred, precisely as authorized by Article 220 of the same and Articles 9 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, and according to the current wording of Article 62.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Ley N° 9342), it is an unavoidable duty of the Tribunal to establish in the judgment *“…the exact amount of the awarded sums, their adjustments up to the judgment, **including interest and costs**…”* (Emphasis not in original). Therefore, and given that there is no administrative provision to the contrary, the proper course of action would be to include, in the costs section of this judgment, the determination of these latter items, as provided for by the legal order, and not to reserve the pronouncement thereon for the enforcement stage.- **Daniel Aguilar Méndez, Judge.-** **Dissenting vote of Judge Abarca Gómez** With the customary respect and consideration, I must depart from the decision adopted by the majority of this Tribunal in this proceeding for the following reasons. ***I.-*** The majority vote considers, at its core, that none of the provisions cited by the respondent parties require the submission of the original document concerning the special administrative power of attorney (poder especial administrativo) that was required of the person who filed the appeals on behalf of the plaintiff here. However, I consider that Article 82 *bis* of the Trademark Law does so establish. That provision states, as relevant, *"(...)* *Power of attorney for intellectual property. To act on behalf of a natural or legal person in any of the acts related to intellectual property, **the authorization of the grantor shall be required, in an authenticated mandate (mandato autenticado), as a minimum formality; and in any case, the registration of said mandate shall not be required.** (...)".* In my opinion, when the provision states *"authenticated mandate"*, it inescapably refers to the original document, which is the only one that could be authenticated, since if it were a copy, its certification would be the proper course. Thus, the submission of the sufficient power of attorney (mandato) in original form is indeed a requirement established by law, which is why the request did not violate any provision of Ley No. 8220. In the case at hand, in light of the *pro actione* principle and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 283, 286 and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, the respondent Administration requested the plaintiff’s alleged attorney to provide the original of the power of attorney (poder) that accredited him to act in the proceeding, and he did not comply with what was required. Therefore, I consider that the decision to reject the appeals outright is in accordance with the law; which would lead to the claim filed here being declared without merit, with the corresponding order for costs against the plaintiff.

***Cynthia Abarca Gómez***

ConvertirPDF TRIBUNAL PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, : 2545-00-03 Fax: 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA:

Nombre136138 EL ESTADO Y JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL RESOLUCIÓN N° 109-2019-VI TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA - SECCIÓN SEXTA- SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las diez horas veinticinco minutos del treinta de agosto del dos mil diecinueve.- Proceso de conocimiento contencioso administrativo y civil de hacienda incoado por Nombre136138 , portadora de la cédula de identidad número CED108078, representada por Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, en su condición de apoderado especial judicial (aportado con escrito recibido vía fax en fecha 18 de mayo de 2016), contra EL ESTADO, representado por el procurador Alejandro Arce Oses (apersonamiento recibido en fecha 29 de julio de 2016) y la JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL, representada por Nombre82113 , en su condición de Subdirector General de Registro Nacional y Nombre20087 , Nombre1846 , Nombre116122 y Nombre2405 , todos éstos en condición de apoderados especiales judiciales (ver personería y escrito colgados en el expediente judicial electrónico el día veintiséis de agosto del dos mil diecinueve).-

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES, DELIBERACIÓN Y VOTO.- A partir del pasado 08 de octubre entró en vigencia la Ley N° 9342, correspondiente a la reforma total del Código Procesal Civil, que a su vez es el cuerpo normativo que regula las formalidades de las resoluciones jurisdiccionales, por lo que el presente fallo se adapta a las nuevas disposiciones legales, según se observa en el transitorio I de dicha Ley y conforme con el Artículo 2.18 de la circular de Corte Plena número 96-2018 "Normas Prácticas para la Aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Civil", adoptada en el artículo XII de la sesión número 38-18 del 13 de agosto de 2018. Asimismo, se hace ver a las partes que por haberse tramitado parcialmente en forma digital la gestión que se resuelve, se hacer constar que los autos se ajustan además a lo dispuesto en el reglamento sobre Expediente Judicial Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, aprobado por Corte Plena en el artículo XXXI de la sesión N° 22-13, celebrada el 20 de mayo de 2013. De conformidad con los numerales 10 y 11 de dicho Reglamento, se aclara que en caso de citarse número de foliatura o imagen de algún documento perteneciente al expediente judicial, se refiere a folios físicos o escaneados de manera previa a la entrada en funcionamiento del expediente electrónico en el Despacho. Para hacer referencia a los documentos ingresados con posterioridad a ese momento, se indicarán únicamente su fecha de presentación o producción. Igualmente y de conformidad con el principio de equivalencia funcional establecido en el numeral 11 de ese Reglamento, se hace ver a las partes que resulta ajustado a Derecho el uso de extractos digitales de documentos digitalizados aportados por las partes al expediente judicial, pues según esa norma “…tienen la misma fuerza probatoria de los originales…”. Por último, se deja constancia de que se emite esta resolución una vez realizada la respectiva deliberación, con la redacción del voto a cargo del informante, juzgador Aguilar Méndez, con la opinión y voto concurrente de las personas juzgadoras Abarca Gómez y Garita Navarro. La Jueza Abarca Gómez salva el voto y el Juez Aguilar Méndez pone nota.- II.- DE PREVIO.- Considera esta Cámara que es conveniente realizar unas breves precisiones acerca de la prueba admitida a los autos. En primer lugar, indicar que en la minuta de la audiencia preliminar se asentó incorrectamente la información de la prueba admitida a la parte actora, ya que al escuchar la grabación, se aprecia que al respecto la parte manifestó claramente que los documentos que en su momento aportó con la demanda, constaban en la copia certificada del expediente administrativo: “…efectivamente las pruebas que nosotros presentamos son pruebas eminentemente documentales, no tenemos prueba testimonial y dicho sea de paso también las pruebas documentales no son controvertidas y constan en el expediente digital que la parte demandada presentó…” (escuchar a partir del minuto 07:10 hasta el 07:24 de la grabación de la audiencia; resaltado no es del original). Por consiguiente, no existe a los autos prueba que deba ser valorada por este Tribunal fuera de los expedientes administrativos, salvo lo relativo a la resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 11:49:07 horas del 30 de octubre de 2015 y su notificación, los cuales no constan en el expediente administrativo 2014-007735. Asimismo, valga aclarar que según se escucha de la grabación de la audiencia y se corrobora en el expediente judicial electrónico, la copia certificada de los expedientes administrativos corresponde solamente a dos archivos digitales en formato Acrobat Reader denominadas: “2014-7734.pdf” y “2014-7735.pdf”, ya que aunque constan aportados en diversas ocasiones, se trata de los mismos archivos digitales.- III.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO Y ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES.- En el caso concreto y tal como fue determinado durante la audiencia preliminar de este asunto celebrada el día 09 de agosto de 2017, las pretensiones incoadas por la parte actora consisten en lo siguiente: “…PETITORIA: 1. Declarar la nulidad absoluta de la resolución de las 14:48:10 del 12 de agosto del 2015; y por consecuencia la nulidad absoluta de la resolución de las 10:25:09 del 24/9/2015; así como de la resolución de las 14:16:50 del 12 de agosto del 2015; y por consecuencia la nulidad absoluta de la resolución de las 11:01:21 del 24/9/2015; todas ellas del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial. 2. Ordenar AL DEMANDADO el conocimiento y respuesta a los RECURSOS DE REVOCATORIA CON APELACIÓN EN SUBSIDIO, presentados por esta representación, sobre la resolución de las 15:31:36 del 25/06/2015; y sobre la resolución de las 10:27:47 del 11/06/2015; ambas de parte del REGISTRO DE PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL, de forma que continúe el trámite correspondiente de inscripción de marca. 3. Solicito se condene al demandado al pago de […] ambas costas, y subsidiariamente en caso que su autoridad considere que no llevo razón en esta demanda, solicito que se me exonere del pago de las costas por la buena fe de este proceso…”. La parte accionante, en términos generales, plantea en su demanda que resulta disconforme con el ordenamiento jurídico la decisión del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de exigirle en el trámite administrativo de dos solicitudes de inscripción de marcas comerciales, la aportación de un poder especial administrativo en versión física u original. Aduce para ellos dos razones, por un lado, que no existe norma jurídica que sustente el requisito y por tanto, éste deviene en irrazonable y arbitrario; y por otro, que acorde con el artículo 3 de la Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, la copia del poder transmitido vía fax constituye un documento equivalente funcionalmente al original, convirtiendo la exigencia de la Administración en una carga innecesaria para el administrado, al obligarle a duplicar el trámite, lo cual estima violatorio de la Ley de Simplificación de Trámites. - El Estado y la Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional contestan negativamente y oponen ambos la excepción sustantiva de falta de Derecho, por lo que solicitan que se desestime la acción y se condene a la parte actora al pago de las costas y los intereses que éstas generen. Ambas representaciones aducen los mismos alegatos, consistentes, primero, en que los artículos citados por la accionante no justifican la transmisión por medios telemáticos de documentos cuya presentación resulte indispensable en determinada condición dentro del proceso, como lo es la determinación de la capacidad procesal, al amparo de pronunciamientos del Tribunal Registral Administrativo, del artículo 103 del Código Procesal Civil y el artículo 12 de la Ley de Notificaciones Judicial, éste último referido exclusivamente a escritos. Consideran que en ese sentido, el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial estaba en obligación de comprobar mediante documento idóneo si el señor Vargas Solano se encontraba o no facultado para actuar en el proceso y si ostentaba capacidad suficiente para interponer las impugnaciones presentadas, de modo que ante la falta de acreditación lo que correspondía era el rechazo de la gestión. En segundo lugar, aducen que los artículos 9 y 13 de la Ley de Marcas y el artículo 54 inciso a) de su Reglamento establecen la obligatoriedad de presentar el poder correspondiente y la facultad de la Administración de prevenirlo, emitir las resoluciones que correspondan y requerir a los interesados los documentos adicionales necesarios para resolver. Finalmente, consideran que resulta inaplicable el artículo 3 de la Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, por no encontrarnos frente a un documento de esa naturaleza, ni ninguno de los supuestos allí regulados.- IV.- HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para el dictado de esta resolución, se tienen los siguientes hechos como debidamente demostrados conforme la sana crítica racional, sea que así se desprenda de la comunidad de pruebas aportadas y admitidas en este proceso, o porque las partes los han aceptado:

Hechos relacionados con la gestión de inscripción de signo distintivo con número de expediente administrativo 2014-0007734 1) El día 08 de setiembre de 2014, la señora Nombre136138 presentó ante el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial del Registro Nacional solicitud de inscripción de la marca "S&S VLCM Clothing", bajo expediente administrativo número 2014-007734. En la solicitud indicó como medio para recibir notificaciones el fax número 2669-1452 (f. 01 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenido en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 2) El día 08 de diciembre de 2014, se presentó oposición a la solicitud formulada por la aquí actora, por parte del señor Nombre111676 en representación de la compañía Volcom, Inc. (f. 17 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenido en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 3) El día 30 de enero de 2015, la señora Nombre136138 contestó la oposición que había sido presentada e indicó como medio principal para recibir notificaciones el correo electrónico: “...3905” y subsidiariamente el fax número 2237-6896 (f. 116 a 124 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenido en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 4) Por resolución administrativa del Registro de Propiedad Industrial de las 15:12:50 horas del 18 de mayo de 2015, se dispuso en lo que interesa: “…II. Se declara sin lugar la oposición interpuesta por el apoderado de Nombre136139, ., contra solicitud de inscripción de la marca “S & S VLCM Clothing”, presentada por Nombre136138 , a título personal, la cual en este acto se acoge…”. Esta resolución fue notificada a la aquí actora al fax número 2669-1452, el día 22 de mayo de 2015 (f. 125 a 139 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenido en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 5) El 28 de mayo de 2015, el representante de la compañía Volcom, Inc. interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución del Registro de Propiedad Industrial de las 15:12:50 horas del 18 de mayo de 2015, antes citada (f. 168 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 6) En resolución administrativa del Registro de Propiedad Industrial de las 15:31:36 horas del 25 de junio de 2015, se dispuso en lo que interesa: "...I. Declarar con lugar el recurso de revocatoria presentado por Nombre111676 , apoderado de Volcom Inc., en contra de la resolución emitida por esta instancia a las 15:12:50 horas del 18 de mayo del 2015, la cual se revoca, y se declara con lugar la oposición interpuesta por el apoderado de Volcom, Inc., contra solicitud de inscripción de la marca “S & S VLCM Clothing”, presentada por Nombre136138 , a título personal, la cual en este acto se rechaza...". Esta resolución se notificó a la señora Nombre136138 el día viernes 24 de julio de 2015 (f. 227 a 234 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 7) El día 29 de julio de 2015, la señora Nombre136138 procedió a interponer por vía fax recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 15:31:36 horas del 25 de junio de 2015. Dicha gestión la realizó mediante apoderado especial administrativo, el abogado Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano, quien indicó como medio para recibir notificaciones el fax 2572-1360. En ese acto, el abogado Vargas Solano procedió asimismo a remitir copia de su poder especial, el cual se puede apreciar en el siguiente extracto digital: ---------- (f. 245 a 258 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 8) Mediante resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 14:48:10 horas del 12 de agosto de 2015, se previno a la solicitante para que en el plazo de diez días hábiles "...contados a partir del día hábil siguiente de la presente notificación, aporte el original del poder que lo acredita a actuar dentro del presente expediente. Se advierte que de incumplir con lo requerido, el recurso de revocatoria con apelación será rechazado, por falta de capacidad procesal...". Este acto se intentó notificar a la señora Nombre136138 en cinco intentos, tres de ellos realizados el día 14 de agosto y dos, el día 17 de agosto, ambas fechas del año 2015, al fax número 2572-1360, con resultado infructuoso en todos ellos: "Ocupado / Sin Respuesta" (f. 259 a 267 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 9) Por resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 10:25:09 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015, se dispuso lo siguiente: "...Con base en lo expuesto y citas de ley indicadas, SE RESUELVE: Rechazar por inadmisibles los Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio planteados, en contra de la resolución de las 15:31:36 horas del 25 de junio del 2015, por Roy L. Vargas Solano, apoderado de Nombre136138 . , en el expediente de solicitud de inscripción de la marca “S & S VLCM Clothing”, en clase 25..." (Resaltado no es del original). Este acto fue notificado a la aquí actora al fax 2572-1360 en fecha 30 de setiembre de 2015 (f. 271 a 276 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 10) Mediante escrito sin comprobante de recibido legible, ni fecha de elaboración o rúbrica, el señor Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano en condición de apoderado especial administrativo de Nombre136138 , interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio e incidente de nulidad concomitante respecto de la resolución de las 10:25:09 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015. En esa oportunidad ofreció como medio de notificación el fax número 2573-4350 y subsidiariamente el correo electrónico ...3906 (f. 283 a 286 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 11) Con fecha de recibido 13 de octubre de 2015, el abogado Vargas Solano adjunta de manera física poder especial administrativo otorgado a su favor por parte de la señora Nombre136138 (f. 287 a 288 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); 12) En resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 11:31:03 horas del 30 de octubre de 2015, se declaró sin lugar los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio e incidente de nulidad concomitante que habían sido interpuestos. Este acto se notificó a la aquí actora al fax 2572-1360 el día 04 de noviembre de 2015 (f. 290 a 293 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007734 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7734.pdf”); Hechos relacionados con la gestión de inscripción de signo distintivo con número de expediente administrativo 2014-0007735 13) El día 08 de setiembre de 2014, la señora Nombre136138 presentó ante el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial del Registro Nacional solicitud de inscripción de la marca de comercio "Volsurf & Comskate", bajo expediente administrativo número 2014-007735. Indicó allí como medio para recibir notificaciones el fax número 2669-1452 (f. 01 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 14) El día 08 de diciembre de 2014, se presentó oposición a la solicitud de la aquí actora, el señor Nombre111676 en representación de la compañía Volcom, Inc. (f. 35 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 15) El 05 de febrero de 2015, la señora Nombre136138 contestó la oposición que había sido presentada e indicó como medio principal para recibir notificaciones en ambos trámites, el correo electrónico: “...3905” y subsidiariamente el fax número 2237-6896 (f. 82 a 91 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 16) Por resolución administrativa del Registro de Propiedad Industrial de las 10:27:47 horas del 11 de junio de 2015, se dispuso en lo que interesa: “…II. Se declara con lugar la oposición interpuesta por el apoderado de VOLCOM, INC., contra solicitud de inscripción de la marca "Volsurf & Comskate", presentada por Nombre136138 , a título personal, la cual en este acto se rechaza…”. Esta resolución fue notificada a la aquí actora en dos ocasiones distintas: primero, al fax número 2669-1452, el día 19 de junio de 2015 y posteriormente, el día viernes 24 de julio de 2015, sin que en este caso conste el medio al cual se practicó la comunicación, según se aprecia en la siguiente acta de notificación:----- (f. 92 a 103, 125 y 126 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 17) El día 29 de julio de 2015, la señora Nombre136138 procedió a interponer por vía fax recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 10:27:47 horas del 11 de junio de 2015. Dicha gestión la realizó mediante apoderado especial administrativo, el abogado Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano e indicó como medio para recibir notificaciones el fax 2572-1360, y adicionalmente solicitó "...además se me remita por mensaje de texto la existencia de notificaciones al celular 88-13-55-89...". En ese acto, el abogado Vargas Solano procedió asimismo a remitir copia de su poder especial (f. 127 a 138 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 18) Mediante resolución administrativa de las 14:16:50 horas del 12 de agosto de 2015, el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial previno a la solicitante para que en el plazo de diez días hábiles se presentara el original del poder especial (hecho no controvertido y f. 150 a 153 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 19) Por resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 11:01:21 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015, se dispuso lo siguiente: "...Con base en lo expuesto y citas de ley indicadas, SE RESUELVE: Rechazar por inadmisibles los Recursos de Revocatoria y Apelación en subsidio planteados, en contra de la resolución de las 10:27:47 horas del 11 de junio del 2015, por Roy L. Vargas Solano, apoderado de Nombre136138 . , en el expediente de solicitud de inscripción de la marca "Volsurf & Comskate", en clase 25..." (Resaltado no es del original). Este acto fue notificado a la aquí actora al fax 2572-1360 en fecha 30 de setiembre de 2015 (f. 139 a 144 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 20) Mediante escrito recibido el día 06 de octubre de 2015, el señor Roy Lorenzo Vargas Solano en condición de apoderado especial administrativo de Nombre136138 , interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio e incidente de nulidad concomitante respecto de la resolución de las 11:01:21 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015. En esa oportunidad ofreció como medio de notificación el fax número 2573-4350 y subsidiariamente el correo electrónico ...3906 (f. 150 a 153 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); 21) Con fecha de recibido 13 de octubre de 2015, el abogado Vargas Solano adjuntó de manera física poder especial administrativo otorgado a su favor por parte de la señora Nombre136138 (f. 166 y 167 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo número 2014-007735 contenida en el archivo electrónico “2014-7735.pdf”); y 22) En resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 11:49:07 horas del 30 de octubre de 2015, se declaró sin lugar los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio e incidente de nulidad concomitante que habían sido interpuestos. Este acto se notificó a la aquí actora al fax 2572-1360 el día 04 de noviembre de 2015 (Hecho no controvertido y documentos aportados con la demanda y admitidos durante la audiencia preliminar).- V.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS.- De utilidad para el presente fallo se tienen por no demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque las partes incumplieron sus cargas probatorias, o bien, porque el Despacho no halló prueba idónea que, a la luz de la sana crítica, permitiera acreditarlos: 1.- La notificación de la resolución administrativa del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial de las 14:16:50 horas del 12 de agosto del año 2015, adoptada dentro del expediente administrativo 2014-007735.- 2.- La existencia de dudas fundadas acerca de la autenticidad o de la integridad del poder especial administrativo enviado por fax a los expedientes administrativos n° 2014-007735 y 2014-007735, correspondientes a las solicitudes de inscripción de marcas comerciales de la aquí actora.- VI.- SOBRE EL FONDO.- Vistos y analizados los alegatos utilizados por las partes en este asunto, considera este Tribunal que lleva razón la parte actora, específicamente, respecto de las restricciones que tienen las Administraciones, en cuanto a la simplificación y racionalización de los trámites administrativos, ya que como en efecto cita la accionante y como se explicará seguidamente, los requisitos de las peticiones administrativas se rigen por un principio de taxatividad, racionalidad y simplicidad, además de otros principios de corte procedimental que dan prioridad a la sustancialidad de la gestión, como lo son el informalismo y el in dubio pro actione, todos los cuales conducen como veremos, a que la Administración deba encauzar los procedimientos administrativos hacia su debida y pronta resolución de manera eficaz, eficiente, simple, continúa y adaptada a las necesidades del servicio, dando prevalencia al análisis de fondo de las gestiones, de manera que la inadmisibilidad por forma sólo pueda tener cabida en tanto se trate única y exclusivamente de presupuestos de indispensable comprobación. De esta orientación da cuenta la Ley de General de la Administración Pública (LGAP) en sus numerales 4, 223, 224 y 269.1, así como la doctrina que impregna la Ley N° 8220 de 04 de marzo de 2002, Ley Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos. En primer lugar, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido clara y concisa en desarrollar a partir -principalmente- del artículo 4 de la Ley de General de la Administración Pública, una serie de principios de rango constitucional que deben caracterizar el funcionamiento administrativo, en particular, en tratándose de los denominados trámites burocráticos: “III.- PRINCIPIOS CONSTITUCIONALES DE EFICACIA, EFICIENCIA, SIMPLICIDAD Y CELERIDAD DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN Y FUNCIÓN ADMINISTRATIVAS. La Constitución Política, en su parte orgánica, recoge o enuncia algunos principios rectores de la función y organización administrativas, que como tales deben orientar, dirigir y condicionar a todas las administraciones públicas en su cotidiano quehacer. Dentro de tales principios destacan la eficacia, eficiencia, simplicidad y celeridad (artículos –todos de la Constitución Política- 140, inciso 8, en cuanto le impone al Poder Ejecutivo el deber de “Vigilar el buen funcionamiento de los servicios y dependencias administrativas”, el 139, inciso 4, en la medida que incorpora el concepto de “buena marcha del Gobierno” y el 191 al recoger el principio de “eficiencia de la administración”). Estos principios de orden constitucional, han sido desarrollados por la normativa infraconstitucional, así, la Ley General de la Administración Pública los recoge en los artículos 4°, 225, párrafo 1°, y 269, párrafo 1°, y manda que deben orientar y nutrir toda organización y función administrativa. La eficacia como principio supone que la organización y función administrativa deben estar diseñadas y concebidas para garantizar la obtención de los objetivos, fines y metas propuestos y asignados por el propio ordenamiento jurídico, con lo que debe ser ligado a la planificación y a la evaluación o rendición de cuentas (artículo 11, párrafo 2°, de la Constitución Política). La eficiencia, implica obtener los mejores resultados con el mayor ahorro de costos o el uso racional de los recursos humanos, materiales, tecnológicos y financieros. La simplicidad demanda que las estructuras administrativas y sus competencias sean de fácil comprensión y entendimiento, sin procedimientos alambicados que retarden la satisfacción de los intereses públicos empeñados. Por su parte, la celeridad obliga a las administraciones públicas cumplir con sus objetivos y fines de satisfacción de los intereses públicos, a través de los diversos mecanismos, de la forma más expedita, rápida y acertada posible para evitar retardos indebidos. Este conjunto de principios le impone exigencias, responsabilidades y deberes permanentes a todos los entes públicos que no pueden declinar de forma transitoria o singular […] Así las cosas, cuando la Administración Pública realiza su función y tramitar los asuntos de interés de los administrados, debe abstenerse de exigir a los administrados requisitos en exceso, sobre todo cuando éstos no cuenta con una respaldo normativo, que entraben los procedimientos y lesionen los derechos fundamentales de los administrados…” (Resaltado no es del original. Ver sentencia n° 2007-15849 de las 17:59 horas del 31 de octubre del 2007. En el mismo sentido: 2003- 11382 de las 15:11 horas del 7 de octubre del 2003, 2005-05600 de las 16:34 horas del 10 de mayo del 2005, 2012- 06859 de las 15:32 horas del 23 de mayo del 2012, 2015-04295 de las 09:30 horas del 27 de marzo de 2015 y 2017-07259 de las 09:45 horas del 19 de mayo de 2017, entre otras). Ahora bien, al universo de autorizaciones, permisos o peticiones administrativas de diversa índole que tiene relevancia práctica en la vida de las personas en su relación con las instituciones o entidades públicas, se le ha venido a conocer coloquialmente en nuestro medio como “trámites administrativos”, “tramitología” o burocracia; y es precisamente, en ese sector del funcionamiento administrativo donde tiene mayor trascendencia la aplicación de estos principios constitucionales. Así, mediante la Ley Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos, se ha intentado de parte del legislador engarzar la jurisprudencia constitucional con el diario quehacer de las Administraciones, estableciendo una serie de límites a éstas en cuanto a la gestión de estos trámites y al mismo tiempo, otorgando una serie de derechos procedimentales a los Administrados, lo que en su conjunto tiene por fin dotar a las personas de certeza respecto de qué y hasta dónde les puede exigir la institucionalidad pública en la atención de sus solicitudes, bajo la forma de requisitos y su calificación. Dentro del articulado de esta ley y de importancia para la resolución del presente asunto, vale la pena transcribir los siguientes: “…Artículo 2º-Presentación única de documentos. La información que presenta un administrado ante una entidad, órgano o funcionario de la Administración Pública, no podrá ser requerida de nuevo por estos, para ese mismo trámite u otro en esa misma entidad u órgano. De igual manera, ninguna entidad, órgano o funcionario público, podrá solicitar al administrado, información que una o varias de sus mismas oficinas emitan o posean. […] Artículo 4.- Publicidad de los trámites y sujeción a la ley. Todo trámite o requisito, con independencia de su fuente normativa, para que pueda exigirse al administrado deberá: a) Constar en una ley, un decreto ejecutivo o un reglamento. b) Estar publicado en el diario oficial La Gaceta junto con el procedimiento a seguir, los instructivos, manuales, formularios y demás documentos correspondientes y estar ubicado en un lugar visible dentro de la institución. Asimismo, en un diario de circulación nacional deberá publicarse un aviso referido a dicha publicación. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, dichos trámites o requisitos podrán ser divulgados en medios electrónicos. La oficina de información al ciudadano de las instituciones será la encargada de explicarle al usuario los requisitos y el procedimiento para el otorgamiento de solicitudes, permisos, licencias o autorizaciones. En caso de no contar con esa oficina, la institución deberá designar un departamento o una persona para este fin…” (Resaltado no es del original). Este preámbulo es de suma importancia, pues la Administración, concretamente, el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial ha situado su defensa en el carácter esencial de un requisito en un trámite administrativo. Entonces, ¿Constituía en los trámites de inscripción de marca de la señora Nombre136138 , un requisito indispensable la presentación del original del poder especial administrativo? Para este Tribunal, la respuesta es negativa, en particular, considerando que el poder ya había sido presentado y recibido por el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial por medios telemáticos (ver hechos probados n° 11 y 21) y dado que ni la Administración, ni la contraparte administrativa: la compañía Volcom, Inc., quien se opuso a la inscripción de las marcas y estaba representada por su apoderado, el señor Nombre111676 , habían cuestionado ni la autenticidad, ni la integridad del documento. Las Administraciones demandadas han alegado en el proceso que la Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos y su Reglamento Ejecutivo, establecen que la presentación del poder original es un requisito del trámite administrativo y por consiguiente, el rechazo por incumplimiento del mismo está ajustado a Derecho. Al respecto, dicen los artículos citados por las demandadas: Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos, Ley N° 7978 del 06 de enero de 2000: "...Artículo 9°- Solicitud de registro. La solicitud de registro de una marca será presentada ante el Registro de Propiedad Industrial y contendrá lo siguiente: a) Nombre y dirección del solicitante. b) Lugar de constitución y domicilio del solicitante, cuando sea una persona jurídica. c) Nombre del representante legal, cuando sea el caso. d) Nombre y dirección del apoderado en el país, cuando el solicitante no tenga domicilio ni establecimiento mercantil real y efectivo en el país. e) La marca cuyo registro se solicite, cuando se trate de una marca denominativa sin grafía, forma ni color especial. f) Una reproducción de la marca en el número de ejemplares que determine el reglamento de esta ley, cuando se trate de marcas denominativas con grafía, forma o color especial, o de marcas figurativas, mixtas o tridimensionales con color o sin él. g) Una traducción de la marca, cuando esté constituida por algún elemento denominativo con significado en un idioma distinto del castellano. h) Una lista de los nombres de los productos o servicios para los cuales se use o se usará la marca, agrupados por clases según la Clasificación internacional de productos y servicios de Niza, con la indicación del número de clase. i) Los documentos o las autorizaciones requeridos en los casos previstos en los incisos m), n) y p) del artículo 7 y los incisos f) y g) del artículo 8 de la presente ley, cuando sea pertinente. j) El comprobante de la tasa establecida. Los solicitantes podrán gestionar, ante el Registro, por sí mismos, con el auxilio de un abogado y notario, o bien, por medio de mandatario. Cuando un mandatario realice gestiones, deberá presentar el poder correspondiente, conforme los requisitos del artículo 82 bis de esta Ley. Si dicho poder se encuentra en el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial, deberá indicarse el expediente de la marca, el nombre de esta y el número de solicitud o registro en que se encuentra; el mandatario podrá actuar hasta donde le permitan facultades autorizadas originalmente. Cuando el solicitante desee prevalerse de la prioridad de una solicitud anterior, presentará la declaración de prioridad y los documentos referidos en los párrafos tercero y cuarto del artículo 5 de la presente ley, con la solicitud de registro y dentro de los plazos fijados. La declaración de prioridad contendrá los siguientes datos: a) El nombre del país o la oficina regional donde se presentó la solicitud prioritaria. b) La fecha de presentación de la solicitud prioritaria. c) El número de la solicitud prioritaria, si se le ha asignado. [...] Artículo 13°- Examen de forma. El Registro de la Propiedad Industrial examinará si la solicitud cumple lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la presente ley y las disposiciones reglamentarias correspondientes, para lo cual tendrá un plazo de quince días hábiles contados a partir de la fecha de recepción de la solicitud. De no haberse cumplido alguno de los requisitos mencionados en el artículo 9 de la presente ley o las disposiciones reglamentarias correspondientes, el Registro notificará al solicitante para que subsane el error o la omisión dentro del plazo de quince días hábiles a partir de la notificación correspondiente, bajo apercibimiento de considerarse abandonada la solicitud..." (Resaltado no es del original). Reglamento de la Ley de Marcas y Otros Signos Distintivos, Decreto Ejecutivo n° 30233-J del 20 de febrero de 2002: "...Artículo 54.- Funciones del Director. El Director del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial, o el funcionario que legalmente le sustituya, tendrá a su cargo las siguientes funciones: a) Emitir las resoluciones que correspondan en los asuntos sometidos a su conocimiento y requerir a los interesados los documentos adicionales que estime necesarios para resolver..." (Resaltado no es del original). Tal y como se puede apreciar de las normas en cuestión, llevan razón las Administraciones demandadas en cuanto a que la presentación del poder es un requisito para el administrado que solicite la inscripción de una marca, cuando actúe por medio de un apoderado, pero ninguna de estas normas exige la presentación del documento original en su versión física, aunque el artículo 9 de la Ley de Marcas sí remite en cuanto a requisitos de forma del poder al numeral 82 bis de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, que dice lo siguiente: “Artículo 82 bis.- Poder para propiedad intelectual. Para actuar en nombre de una persona física o jurídica en cualquiera de los actos relacionados con la propiedad intelectual, se deberá contar con la autorización del poderdante, en mandato autenticado, como formalidad mínima; y en todo caso no se requerirá la inscripción de dicho mandato. Cuando el poder se extienda en el extranjero, podrá formalizarse conforme al derecho interno del país donde se otorgue, y deberá autenticarse. Salvo disposición en contrario, todo mandatario se entenderá autorizado, suficiente y bastante para realizar todos los actos que las leyes autoricen realizar al propio titular de los derechos de propiedad intelectual o industrial correspondientes, ante cualquier autoridad, oficina o registro público, para la inscripción, el registro, la renovación, el traspaso, la licencia y los demás movimientos aplicados, la conservación o la defensa de sus derechos, tanto en sede administrativa como judicial, en todas sus instancias e incidencias…” (Resaltado no es del original). Nuevamente, esta norma no establece la obligación de presentar el documento físico u original del poder especial administrativo de una persona solicitante, por el contrario, la mínima formalidad requerida es la autenticación. Por tanto y siguiendo, los lineamos constitucionales desarrollados mediante la Ley N° 8220, debemos seguidamente confrontar contra estos principios generales, aquellos fundamentos que hubieran sido dados por la Administración en el trámite administrativo de la gestión recursiva interpuesta dentro de los procedimientos de inscripción de marca, a saber, concretamente, en las resoluciones administrativas de las 14:48:10 horas (expediente administrativo n° 2014-007734 – hecho probado 8) y de las 14:16:50 horas (expediente administrativo n° 2014-007735 – hecho probado 18), ambos del día 12 de agosto de 2015. Siendo que ambas versan sobre la misma prevención, procederemos a analizar el apercibimiento llevada a cabo en la primera de éstas, que indica expresamente lo siguiente: “…Capacidad procesal: Según los autos del expediente de marras el apersonamiento como apoderado del señor Roy L. Vargas Solano, se presenta en la etapa recursiva, por lo tanto debe el impugnante aportar original de poder especial, ya que el que se presenta es una copia simple enviada por fax: la cual no es de recibo en este caso según el Tribunal Registral Administrativo: En el caso concreto, al no haberse acreditado la debida capacidad procesal por parte del Licenciado […] en razón de que no cumplió con las prevenciones de mérito realizadas por este Tribunal de proceder a adjuntar al presente expediente el original o copia certificada del poder constante a folio 89, el cual fue presentado a los autos vía fax, para acreditar su capacidad procesal para intervenir en el proceso, en representación de la empresa […] ya que dicho poder es una copia simple y de conformidad con la normativa supletoria que en este tema aplica este Tribunal, sea el artículo 12 de la Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales No. Placa742, refiere únicamente a la presentación de escritos vía fax y otros medios semejantes, no así a otro tipo de documentos cuyos originales o certificación de los mismos, son indispensables para demostrar determinada situación o condición, sea en este caso la legitimación del Licenciado […] para actuar en representación de la empresa […] en su calidad de apelante en el presente asunto, mediante documento de poder idóneo, razón por la cual su actuación y petición, realizadas ante el Registro y este Tribunal resultan improcedentes, pues en definitiva no consta en autos documento idóneo que acredite su representación…” (Resaltado no es del original). Como vemos, el criterio del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial se sustenta exclusivamente, en el criterio de un órgano contralor no jerárquico, que interpreta que el documento relativo a un poder presentado vía fax constituye una copia simple y que por esa condición o característica pierde toda idoneidad para acreditar la representación, que a su vez es un requisito indispensable en el trámite administrativo. Para la mayoría de este Tribunal ese razonamiento resulta equívoco, pues una exigencia de este tipo en efecto carece de sustento normativo y fáctico, y por ende, resulta irrazonable. En primer lugar, debemos recordar que el procedimiento administrativo es una de las tantas formas de ejercicio de la función administrativa, por lo que la aplicación supletoria de la normativa procesal de carácter jurisdiccional, conforme los numerales 9 y 13 LGAP, sólo resulta legítima en caso de que no exista fuente normativa administrativa, escrita o no escrita, pues tal y como vimos anteriormente, la Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos y los principios del servicio público, obligan a que el funcionamiento administrativo deba ser simple, eficaz y célere, para lo cual el requisito del que se trate debe estar previsto en una Ley o Reglamento y una vez presentada la información, ésta “…no podrá ser requerida de nuevo por estos, para ese mismo trámite u otro en esa misma entidad u órgano…”. Sobre este punto, el reglamento ejecutivo a esta ley, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 37045-MP-MEIC del 22 de febrero de 2012, dispone: “…Artículo 29º-Requerimiento de información. Por su parte, los órganos y entes de la Administración Pública sujetos a la aplicación del presente reglamento, no podrán exigir a los ciudadanos documentos adicionales a los que se encuentran expresamente señalados en una ley, decreto ejecutivo o un reglamento para un trámite determinado. El ciudadano deberá presentar una sola vez, la información que requiera la Administración Pública para la resolución de su trámite. La Administración no podrá solicitar que los renueve o presente de nuevo si el hecho generador del documento no ha cambiado, salvo los casos en que, al momento de iniciar el trámite, alguno de los documentos se encuentre vencido y sea necesaria su actualización para la resolución del trámite. En casos de excepción y cuando las disposiciones normativas así lo establezcan, la entidad u órgano de la Administración Pública tiene la facultad de requerir ampliaciones o aclaraciones adicionales de los documentos ya aportados en la solicitud por el ciudadano. Dicho requerimiento se hará por escrito, de manera motivada y por una única vez. No obstante lo anterior, tal facultad debe utilizarse restrictivamente, de forma excepcional y cuando el documento adicional sea imprescindible para la resolución del trámite…” (Resaltado no es del original). Como se puede observar de la transcripción de la resolución del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial, el único motivo para sustentar la decisión administrativa estriba en que el documento es una copia simple enviada por fax, sin que exista de por medio un cuestionamiento de la integridad o autenticidad del documento. En opinión de la mayoría de esta Cámara, el administrado entregó de manera efectiva la información requerida en la norma, como lo es la acreditación del mandato que facultaba al señor Vargas Solano para que, en los términos del 87 bis de la Ley de Marcas, defendiera los derechos de la peticionaria en todas las instancias de la sede administrativa. En ese sentido, el fundamento utilizado por la Administración demandada de justificar su accionar en los criterios del Tribunal Registral Administrativo no alcanza para desvirtuar la imposición de la norma legal, en particular, lo prohijado por la Ley N° 8220 y su reglamento, de manera tal que para la mayoría de esta Cámara, sólo podría resultar razonable la prevención de la documentación original, en el tanto a través de un acto debidamente motivado y en aras de garantizar la seguridad y certeza jurídicas, la Administración expresara dudas concretas y fundadas acerca de la autenticidad o integridad del documento que hubiera sido transmitido por vías electrónicas o telemáticas, y no como en el presente caso, por el hecho de constituir una copia simple del documento. Además, tómese en cuenta que el artículo 12 de la Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales -que es la norma utilizada en los criterios del Tribunal Registral-, no obliga a la presentación de documentación en forma física, sino que regula la posibilidad de las partes en un proceso judicial para remitir información por medios telemáticos u otros sistemas tecnológicos que el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial habilite para estos efectos, como ocurre actualmente, con el sistema de expediente electrónico judicial o de “Gestión en Línea”. Dice el numeral de comentario: “..Artículo 12.- Contestación y respuesta de notificaciones. Quienes intervengan en un proceso podrán realizar gestiones ante el tribunal, a través de medios electrónicos, informáticos, telemáticos o de otra clase semejante, que permitan el envío de la comunicación y su normal recepción, en forma tal que esté garantizada su autenticidad, en la forma en que lo haya dispuesto el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial. Los medios electrónicos, informáticos, telemáticos o de otra clase semejante deberán ser accesibles a los lectores de pantalla para no videntes…” (Resaltado). Como se puede observar, sólo en aquellos donde no se pueda garantizar la autenticidad de la información, es que entonces puede quedar desvirtuada la información no transmitida por medios telemáticos. Así las cosas, considera este Tribunal que en realidad no existía motivo cierto o legal para que el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial pudiera exigir la presentación del documento físico del poder especial administrativo como requisito para acreditar la representación de la señora Nombre136138 , pues para ello bastaba la copia ya remitida vía fax, siendo improcedente la consideración que por la sola condición de ser una copia física, la misma resultaba inidónea para ello. A todo esto, debemos sumar que tal y como como se ha tenido por demostrado en los hechos probados n° 11 y 21, el poder original fue presentado y recibido posteriormente por el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial, de modo que estamos en presencia del requerimiento de un formalidad por la formalidad misma, contraria a todo lo antes citado, pero en especial, al artículo 223 LGAP: "...Sólo causará nulidad de lo actuado la omisión de formalidades sustanciales del procedimiento...". Así las cosas, sin motivo fundado para dudar de la autenticidad o integridad del documento remitido por vía fax, considera la mayoría del Tribunal que las disposiciones de la Administración de exigir como requisito la presentación de tal documento físico, y posteriormente, el rechazo de los recursos y de la gestión de inscripción producto de la inatención de ese requerimiento, se tornó entonces en una medida innecesaria y por esa vía irrazonable y desproporcional a tenor de lo antes visto. Ergo, los actos administrativos por los cuales se puso fin a esas gestiones administrativas devienen disconformes sustancialmente con el ordenamiento jurídico administrativo por carecer de motivo, es decir, porque faltan los antecedentes fácticos y jurídicos que permiten ejercer la competencia para el caso concreto, de modo que se impide el accionar de la Administración Pública, ya que no habría causa legítima para el ejercicio de la función administrativa por parte de sus agentes. Por otra parte, valga aclarar que dado que este Tribunal no cuestiona la necesidad de acreditar la representación y siendo que tampoco es de relevancia si el documento en cuestión, tiene o no carácter de documento electrónico, es posible prescindir entonces de los alegatos relacionados con la aplicación al caso concreto de los artículos 103 del Código Procesal Civil y 3 de la Ley de Certificados, Firmas Digitales y Documentos Electrónicos, los cuales no vienen al caso, ni afectan la conclusión de que en efecto, la Administración actúa contrario a Derecho al exigir el cumplimiento de un requisito que la parte aquí actora ya había satisfecho adecuadamente en el trámite que llevaba a cabo ante esa Dependencia, o al menos, sin que existiera una oposición fundada más allá de su mero carácter de copia simple. Por consiguiente y a tenor de todo lo antes dicho, la demanda debe ser acogida en todos sus extremos, declarando la nulidad de los actos administrativos de ambos procedimientos, por los cuales se previno el requisito del documento original del poder especial administrativo, así como de los actos definitivos por los cuales se dispuso el rechazo de los recursos administrativos incoados, de manera tal que deberá el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial volver a pronunciarse acerca de éstos conforme corresponda en Derecho y en los plazos de ley, mediante una debida comunicación del acto respectivo a los medios de notificación que obren en los expedientes administrativos. Finalmente, valga aclarar que con este fallo, que la Sección no está pronunciándose acerca del fondo de la gestión administrativa, siendo que el objeto de la nulidad que aquí se declara estriba en los actos por los que se rechaza el conocimiento de los recursos administrativos incoados contra los actos finales de ambos procedimientos de inscripción de marca, correspondiéndole ahora a la Administración su adecuada resolución en esa sede.- VII.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES OPUESTAS.- Toda vez que tanto el Estado como la Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional limitaron sus alegatos a la excepción de falta de Derecho y dado que como se ha expuesto en este pronunciamiento, la pretensión anulatoria promovida por la parte actora ha encontrado asidero jurídico y debe ser estimada como en efecto se ha ordenado, lo que corresponde entonces, es denegar la defensa opuesta por las Administraciones demandadas, por resultar improcedente.- VIII.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS.- De conformidad con los artículos 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y 73 del Código Procesal Civil (Ley N° 9342), la condena al pago de las costas constituyen una obligación que se impone a la parte perdidosa por el hecho de serlo, en beneficio de la vencedora, a fin de reintegrarle a ésta las diversas categorías de gastos allí enlistados. Ambos numerales prevén diversas causales de dispensa de esta condenatoria, por lo que en ausencia de alegatos o pruebas que permitan a este Tribunal, en el caso concreto, ponderar y tener por acreditado alguno de estos motivos, no es posible entonces excepcionar total o parcialmente a la parte vencida de la aplicación de dicha máxima, por lo que conforme a las normas de cita, lo debido es imponer la condena a la parte vencida. En aplicación supletoria de lo dispuesto en los artículos 61.2, 62.1 y 76.1 del Código Procesal Civil (Ley N° 9342), toda vez que en ese asunto la cuantía de la condenatoria se realiza en abstracto y por tanto, pendiente de liquidación en fase de ejecución de sentencia, corresponderá en esa etapa llevar a cabo la determinación del importe de las costas, tomando para ello como base el total de la condenatoria, así como la liquidación y las pruebas correspondientes que deberán ser aportadas a los autos por la parte vencedora.-.-

POR TANTO:

Por mayoría, SE RECHAZA LA EXCEPCIÓN DE FALTA DE DERECHO opuesta por los demandados.- En consecuencia y por mayoría, SE DECLARA CON LUGAR la demanda incoada por Nombre136138 , contra EL ESTADO y la JUNTA ADMINISTRATIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL.- Se declara, entonces, la nulidad absoluta de las siguientes resoluciones administrativas del Registro de la Propiedad Industrial del Registro Nacional: a) En el expediente administrativo n° 2014-007734: 1. Resolución de las 14:48:10 horas del 12 de agosto de 2015, 2. Resolución de las 10:25:09 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015, y 3. Resolución de las 11:31:03 horas del 30 de octubre de 2015; y b) En el expediente administrativo n° 2014-007735: 1. Resolución de las 14:16:50 horas del 12 de agosto de 2015, 2. Resolución de las 11:01:21 horas del 24 de setiembre de 2015 y 3. Resolución de las 11:49:07 horas del 30 de octubre de 2015. Deberá en consecuencia el Registro de la Propiedad Industrial del Registro Nacional, volver a pronunciarse acerca de estos recursos administrativos conforme corresponda en Derecho y en los plazos de ley, mediante una debida comunicación del acto respectivo a los medios de notificación que obren en los expedientes administrativos.- Se condena a la parte vencida al pago total de las costas y sus intereses en los términos expuestos en el Considerando VIII de esta sentencia.- La Jueza Abarca Gómez salva el voto y el Juez Aguilar Méndez pone nota.-.- Notifíquese.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Cynthia Abarca Gómez Roberto Garita Navarro NOTA DEL JUEZ AGUILAR MÉNDEZ.- Específicamente en relación a la condenatoria al pago de costas, si bien resulta unánime el criterio de que efectivamente debe imponerse la misma al perdidoso por el sólo hecho de serlo, con todo respeto difiero de mis compañeras en cuanto al carácter abstracto o líquido de este pronunciamiento. Dada la escasa regulación que sobre este punto han tenido los diferentes cuerpos normativos procesales en esta materia, como lo fue en su momento la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y en la actualidad, el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se dio lugar a una extendida aplicación por supletoriedad de las normas del Código Procesal Civil, justamente conforme lo autorizan los numerales 220 ídem y los artículos 9 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En consecuencia y según la vigente redacción del artículo 62.1 del Código Procesal Civil (Ley N° 9342), constituye un deber ineludible del Tribunal, el establecer en el fallo de “…una vez el monto exacto de las cantidades otorgadas, sus adecuaciones hasta la sentencia, incluidos los intereses y las costas…” (Resaltado no es del original). Por consiguiente y dado que se carece de norma administrativa en contrario, lo procedente sería incluir en el acápite de costas de esta sentencia, la determinación de estos últimos rubros, tal y como lo dispone el ordenamiento jurídico y no reservar su pronunciamiento para la etapa de ejecución de sentencia.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez, Juez.- Voto salvado de la Jueza Abarca Gómez Con el acostumbrado respeto y consideración, debo apartarme de la decisión que adopta la mayoría de este Tribunal en este proceso por las siguientes razones. I.- El voto de mayoría estima, en lo medular, que ninguna de las normas que citan las partes demandadas, exigen la presentación del documento original relativo al poder especial administrativo que fue requerido a quien presentó los recursos a nombre de la aquí accionante. Sin embargo, considero que el artículo 82 bis de la Ley de Marcas sí lo establece. Dicha norma señala, en lo que interesa, "(...) Poder para propiedad intelectual. Para actuar en nombre de una persona física o jurídica en cualquiera de los actos relacionados con la propiedad intelectual, se deberá contar con la autorización del poderdante, en mandato autenticado, como formalidad mínima; y en todo caso no se requerirá la inscripción de dicho mandato. (...)". En mi criterio, cuando la norma señala "mandato autenticado", ineludiblemente hace referencia al documento original, que es el único que podría ser autenticado, ya que si fuese una copia, lo procedente sería su certificación. Así las cosas, la presentación del mandato suficiente en original sí resulta un requisito establecido por la ley, razón por la cual la prevención no violentaría ninguna disposición de la Ley No. 8220. En el caso que nos ocupa, en atención al principio pro actione y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 283, 286 y 287 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la Administración demandada previno al supuesto abogado de la actora que aportara el original del poder que lo acreditaba a actuar en el procedimiento y éste no atendió lo requerido. Por ello, estimo que la decisión de rechazar de plano los recursos formulados se encuentra ajustada a derecho; lo que llevaría a que deba declararse sin lugar la demanda que aquí ha sido planteada, con la respectiva condena en costas a la parte actora.

Cynthia Abarca Gómez *0GVT1J0WLNY61*