a) The transfer is effective from the date of the signature of this transfer document.

b) The transfer is effective from the following date: ...

_____________________

INTERNATIONAL FORM TYPE 7

ERROR CORRECTION REQUEST

in record (s)

and/or trademark registration request (s)

filed in the Office of ..

For Office use only

Holder's reference number and/or applicant: * ...

Representative reference number: * ...

1. Correction request

The correction (s) identified in this petition is hereby requested (n).

2. Record (s) and/or Request (s) in question

This request concerns the following registration (s) and/or application (s):

2.1 Registration Number (s):

2.2 Request Number (s): ** 51

2.3 If spaces under 2.1 or 2.2 are not sufficient, check this box and provide the information in an additional sheet.

3. Holders (s) and/or Applicant (s)

3.1 If the holder and/or applicant is a natural person,

(a) your last name (s): * 52

(b) your name (s): *

3.2 If the holder and/or applicant is a legal person, the entity's full official designation:

3.3 Address (including postal code and country):

Phone number (s) (prefixed):

Telefacsimile number (s) (prefixed):

3.4 Check this box if there is more than one holder and/or applicant; in such case, relate to an additional sheet and indicate, for each of them, the data referred to in points 3.1 or 3.2 and 3.3.

_{* In this space, the reference number assigned by the holder and/or applicant and/or the reference number assigned by the representative to this request may be indicated.}

_{** When the number of an application has not yet been issued or the applicant or his/her representative does not know, that application may be identified if (i) the provisional application number (if any) granted by the applicant is provided. Office, either (ii) a copy of the application or (iii) a reproduction of the mark, together with an indication of the date on which the Office has received the application and the applicant or its representative to the knowledge of the applicant or his representative. representative has granted an identification number to the application.}

_{* The name (s) and last name (s) to be indicated under (a) and (b) are those listed in the application (s), or are entered in the register, referred to in this request.}

4. Representative

4.1 Name (s) and last name (s):

4.2 Address (including postal code and country):

Phone number (s) (prefixed):

Telefacsimile number (s) (prefixed):

4.3 Serial number of power :** 53

5. Legal address

6. Indication of error (s) and correction (s)

6.1 Data to be corrected:

Data after correction:

6.2 Check this box if the previous space is insufficient; in this case, please indicate in an additional sheet the data to be corrected, as well as the data after the correction.

7. Signature or seal

7.1 Name of the natural person signing or whose stamp is used:

7.2 Check the appropriate box, as appropriate, if the stamp is signed or used by or on behalf of the

7.2.1 holder and/or requester.

7.2.2 representative.

7.3 Signature date or stamp stamp:

7.4. Signature or stamp:

8. Rate

8.1 Currency and amount of the fee paid in connection with this correction request:

8.2 Payment Method:

9. Additional sheets and attachments

Check this box if additional sheets and/or attachments are attached and the total number of such sheets and/or attachments:

_____________________

INTERNATIONAL FORM TYPE 8

REQUEST TO REFRESH A RECORD

filed in the Office of ...

For Office use only

Holder's reference number and/or applicant: * ...

Representative reference number: * ...

1. Indication that a refresh is requested

The renewal of the registration identified in this petition is hereby requested.

2. Record in question

2.1 Record number:

2.2 The filing date of the request that resulted in the registration:

Record Date:

3. Headline (s)

3.1 If the holder is a natural person,

(a) your last name (s): * 54

(b) your name (s): *

3.2 If the holder is a legal person, the entity's full official designation:

3.3 Address (including postal code and country):

_{** You must leave blank if it has not been assigned, or if it has not yet been assigned, a serial number to the power, or if the owner and/or the representative does not yet know the serial number.}

_{* This space may indicate the reference number assigned by the holder and/or the reference number assigned by the representative to this renewal request.}

_{* The name (s) and last name (s) to be indicated under (a) and (b) are those that have been registered in the register referred to in this petition.}

Phone number (s) (prefixed):

Telefacsimile number (s) (prefixed):

3.4 Check this box if there is more than one holder; if yes, relate to an additional sheet and indicate, for each of them, the data referred to in points 3.1 or 3.2 and 3.3.

4. Representative of the holder

4.1 Name (s) and last name (s):

4.2 Address (including postal code and country):

Phone number (s) (prefixed):

Telefacsimile number (s) (prefixed):

4.3 Number of power series: * 55

5. Legal address of the holder

6. Products and/or services * 56

6.1 Renewal is requested for all products and/or services covered by the registration.

6.2 Renewal is requested only for the following products and/or services covered by the registration:** 57

6.3 Renewal is requested for all products and/or services covered by the registry, except following:*** 58

6.4 Check this box if the previous space is insufficient and use an additional sheet.

7. Person other than the holder or representative of the holder, who presents this request for renewal

Important: A person other than the holder or the representative of the holder may submit a renewal request only when the Contracting Party so permits. Accordingly, this item may not be completed if the Contracting Party whose Office is the Office identified on the first page of this renewal request does not allow the renewal request to be filed by a person who does not either the holder or the representative of the holder.

Check this box if this renewal request is filed by a person other than the holder or the owner's representative.

7.1 If the person is a natural person

(a) your last name (s):

(b) your name (s):

7.2 If the person is a legal person, the entity's full official designation:

7.3 Address (including postal code and country):

Phone number (s) (prefixed):

Telefacsimile number (s) (prefixed):

8. Signature or seal

8.1 The name of the natural person signing or whose stamp is used:

8.2 Check the appropriate box, as appropriate, if the stamp is signed or used by or on behalf of the

8.2.1 holder.

8.2.2 holder representative.

8.2.3 the person mentioned in point 7.

8.3 Signature date or stamp stamp:

8.4 Signature or seal:

_{* You must leave blank if it has not been assigned, or if it has not yet been assigned, a serial number to the power, or if the owner or the representative does not know the serial number yet.}

_{* Mark only one of the boxes 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3.}

_{** The list of products and/or services for which the renewal is requested must be presented as shown in the register (grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification, starting with the number of the class relevant and presented in the order of the classes of that Classification, where the goods or services belong to more than one class).}

_{*** The products and/or services for which renewal is not requested, when they belong to more than one Nice Classification class, shall be grouped according to the classes of that Classification, starting with the number of the class relevant and present in the order of the classes of that Classification.}

9. Rate

9.1 Currency and rate paid in relation to this renewal request:

9.2 Payment Method:

10. Additional sheets

Check this box if additional sheets are attached and the total number of such sheets:

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

BOGOTA D. C.,

APPROVED. SUBMIT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE HONORABLE NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS

(FDO.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER IN CHARGE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

(FDO.) CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ.

DECRETA:

ARTICLE 1o. Approve the "Trademark Law Treaty" and its "Regulations," adopted on October 27, 1994.

ARTICLE 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" and its "Regulation", adopted on October 27, 1994, The article first of this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to them is perfected.

ARTICLE 3o. This law applies as of the date of its publication.

The President of the Honorable Senate of the Republic,

ARMANDO BENEDETTI VILLANEDA.

The Secretary General (E) of the Honorable Senate of the Republic,

SAUL CRUZ BONILLA.

The President of the Honorable House of Representatives,

CARLOS ALBERTO ZULUAGA DIAZ.

The Secretary General of the Honorable House of Representatives,

JESUS ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ CAMARGO.

* * *

2009 NUMBER 1343 ACT

(July 31)

by means of which the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" is adopted, and its "Regulation", adopted on 27 October 1994.

In compliance with the provisions of the Auto 127 of June 16, 2010, Expediente LAT-349, of the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which in its pertinent part noted:

" (...)

On the latter particular, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it relates to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, at the time of exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1343 of July 31, 2009. This is because, as this corporation has maintained, the underhealing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the bill and the approval law. ", on the date the Bill of Law number 07 of 2008 will be sanctioned again, 230 of 2008 Chamber, by means of which the" Treaty on the Law of Mark "and its" Regulation ", adopted on October 27, 1994, is approved, Law 1343 of 31 July 2009 is sanctioned here, retaining its numbering and starting dates.

Republic of Colombia-National Government

Communicate and Meet

Execute, upon review of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., 8 November 2010

JUAN MANUEL SANTOS CALDERÓN

The Deputy Foreign Minister, charged with the duties of the Foreign Minister's Office,

FORWARD LENIENCY.

The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism,

SERGIO DIAZ GRANADOS GUIDA.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

General Secretariat

SGC-373

Bogotá D. C., eleven (11) August two thousand ten (2010)

Doctor

CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER

Legal Secretary

Presidency of the Republic

City

REF: LAT-349 Devolution Act 1343 , 2009, as ordered by Sala Plena 127 in 2010.

Respected doctor Pardo:

According to the provisions of the first of the providence issued by the Plena Chamber of this corporation in June 16 of 2010, I proceed to return to the Presidency of the Republic the normative text of the Law 1343 of July 31, 2009, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations, adopted on October 27, 1994, is approved,, to conform to that stated in the The Commission has been in the process of being a member of the Council of Ministers. the procedure identified by this Court during the informal review of the Treaty in question.

After the above, "the Presidency of the Republic will refer to the Court the Law 1343 of 2009, to decide definitively on its exequability".

Carefully,

General Secretariat,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ.

_{Attachment: -Copy of the car in 33 fls.}

_{-Original text of Law 1343 of 2009, sent to the Constitutional Court on 68 fls.}

_MVSM/JSmith

* * *

Constitutional Court

AUTO 127 of 2010

Reference: LAT-349 Expedient

Subject: Constitutional Review of Law 1343 of 31 July 2009, by means of which " The Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks and its Regulations, adopted on 27 October 2009, is approved. 1994. "

Rapporteur:

Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo

Bogotá D. C., sixteen (16) of June two thousand ten (2010).

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in compliance with its constitutional powers and the requirements and formalities laid down in Decree 2067 of 1991, has offered the following

AUTO

I. Background

The Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, having regard to the provisions of article 241, numeral 10, of the Political Constitution, authentic photocopy of the Law number 1343 of July 31, 2009, by means of which "The treaty on trademark law and its regulation, adopted on October 27, 1994"is approved.

In Auto on September 7, 2009, the Office of the Judge Substantiator Took the knowledge of the present case. In the same providence, he asked the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, the referral of the legislative history of the law in review and the certification of the quorum and the exact development and of the votes. Likewise, it required the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to certify the full powers of the person who intervened in the treaty's subscription and whether its acts were confirmed to the President of the Republic.

Additionally, the list was ordered to be set for the purpose of allowing citizen intervention and the communication of the initiation of this process was made available to the President of the Congress for the purposes of the article 244 of the Political Constitution, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General for the purposes set out in Article 11 of the Decree 2067 of 1997.

Finally, the Attorney General of the Nation was transferred to surrender the concept of his jurisdiction, in the terms of Article 7or Decree 2067 of 1991.

Fulfilled the formalities provided for in Decree 2067 of 1991, this Corporation proceeds to decide on the exequability of the treaty and the law that approves it.

II. Text of the Law and the Treaty Object of Review

The text of the law sent for review is then transcribed:

ACT 1343 OF 2009

(July 31)

Official Journal number 47.427 of 31 July 2009

Congress of the Republic

by means of which the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" and its "Regulation", adopted on October 27, 1994, is approved.

The Congress of the Republic

Dresses, the text of the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" and its "Regulation", adopted on October 27, 1994.

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the above international instruments is attached)_[1]

DECRETA:

Article 1o. The 'Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks' and its 'Rules of Procedure' adopted on 27 October 1994.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of Law 7 1944, the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" and its "Regulation", adopted on 27 October 1994, which are approved by the first article of this Law, shall oblige the country from the date on which the international link with respect to them is perfected.

Article 3o. This law applies from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

Hernán Francisco Andrade Serrano.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

Emilio Otero Dajud.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

German Varon Cotrino.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon review of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., at 31 July 2009.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

Jaime Bermudez Merizalde.

The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism,

Luis Guillermo Plata Paez.

III. Interventions

3.1. Industry and Commerce Superintendence

The Superintendence of Industry and Commerce, an entity that, according to Decree 3523 of 2009, is the national competent office responsible for managing the industrial property system in Colombia, intervened, through the Superintendent, to to request the Court to declare the exequability of Law 1343 of 31 July 2009, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted on 27 October 1994, is adopted.

In an introductory acapite, the intervener makes an exhibition on industrial property as a form of property recognized in the Colombian legal order, to highlight its constitutional foundation and point out that, " ... Under the principles and values that guide the Social State of Law, it finds in the individual its point of encounter, performing as a tool for economic development and growth. " It also refers to the role that the individual as a consumer and entrepreneur is responsible for in the context of the industrial property system, which he says is a necessary instrument for free competition to develop. It also highlights the role of industrial property as a tool for the economic growth of developing and industrialized countries. The intervener concludes this part of his letter with a brief account of the trademark regime in Colombia, in which it is indicated that, in this matter, Colombia is governed by the Andean Decision 486 of 2000, which was conceived in a legal framework international for the protection of industrial property, formed by the following international instruments of which Colombia is part: (i) The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, concluded in 1883 and revised and (ii) the Agreement on the Aspects of Property Rights Trade-related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization, negotiated in the Uruguay Round between the years 1986 to 1994.

The intervener then presents a synthesis on the content of the Treaty, in which it is worth noting the consideration under which the TLT_[2] does not establish fully uniform procedures for the States Parties, However, it lays down maximum requirements which it is possible to require, but within which the various countries may opt for minor requirements. It adds that such a forecast seeks to guarantee the applicant for a trademark registration, that, fulfilled those maximum requirements, his application will comply with the registration requirements in any of the member states of the treaty. Similarly, it indicates that the formal requirements included in the TLT coincide with those enshrined in the Andean standard.

A row is followed by an analysis on the passage of the approval law, from which it is concluded that the same one was brought forward with the fulfillment of all the constitutional and legal requirements.

As to the constitutionality of the treaty from the material perspective, the intervener expresses that the Treaty on the Law of Marks conforms to the Constitution and the law, based on the following considerations:

a. It is a manifestation of respect for national sovereignty, for the self-determination of peoples, and for the recognition of the principles of international law accepted by Colombia.

b. It constitutes the exercise of constitutional powers, contained in Articles 150, numeral 16, and 189, numeral 2, of the Charter, under which the State must promote the internationalisation of political, economic and social relations on the basis of national fairness, reciprocity and convenience, as well as social and political integration with other nations.

c. It agrees with the need for the promotion of economic and social relations, and for integration with other nations, taking into account the criteria of reciprocity and national convenience.

d. It relates to the Community rules which constitute the industrial property regime and is harmonious with it, since it pursues the same objective as the protection of industrial property. In this regard, it is envisaged that, by means of international treaties, the industrial property rights conferred by the supra-national rule that enshrines the industrial property regime, including the trademark, will be strengthened.

For the reasons set out above, the intervener considers that the provisions contained in the Treaty on the Law of Marks would not be contrary to the precepts of the National Constitution.

3.2. Intervention by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Foreign Ministry, in writing by the Director of International Legal Affairs, stated that it adheres to the single written defense of the constitutionality of the Treaty which, on behalf of the National Government, present the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, thus demonstrating that it has no legal objections to the declaration of the constitutionality of the Treaty and its approval law.

3.3. Intervention by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism

In writing close to this Corporation, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism asked the Court to declare the International Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations, as well as that of its approval law number 1343 2009.

3.3.1. The Ministry begins by making an analysis of the passage of the Law of the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, from which it concludes that the same was fulfilled in accordance with the Political Constitution and the norms of the procedure outlined in Law 5of 1992.

Punctualizes that the required debates took place in this process and that the papers were published; the deadlines that are required in each of the debates were observed in due form and the required majorities were met. for the approval of the project in each of the sessions in the Senate and the Chamber.

Expresses that, therefore, Law 1343 of 2009 issued by the Congress of the Republic and sanctioned by the President of the Republic, approval of the Treaty on the Rights of Marks and its regulations, adopted On October 27, 1994, it complied with all the requirements required by the Constitution for the purposes of the processing of the laws approving the international treaties, which is why, it respectfully requests the Court to declare its This is a formal point of view.

3.3.2. In order to address the material analysis of the Treaty, the Ministry makes preliminary considerations on "... relations and their constitutional recognition (...)", and presents general on the TLT and its regulations, which include, a list of their background and a description of the agreement and their regulations, detailing their content.

It also refers to the characteristics that, according to the case law, has the analysis of the constitutionality of international treaties.

Then, as substantive reasons that substantiate the constitutionality of the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations, approved by Law 1343 of 2009, it states the following:

3.3.2.1. In accordance with Article 61 of the Political Constitution, it is the duty of the State to protect intellectual property, and it can be said that protection would mark through accession to the agreement, it is the development of that constitutional mandate.

In order to substantiate the previous conclusion, the Ministry refers to various pronouncements of the Court in which the scope of the constitutional protection of intellectual property is fixed and it is stated that the same includes the term mardiums_[3], which, he adds, is in line with the WIPO definition under which Intellectual Property extends to, among other aspects, the " trademarks, trade and service marks, as well as the names and trade names. "

3.3.2.2. The Treaty provides an appropriate mechanism for making the essential ends of the Social State of Law effective, as it contributes to promoting general prosperity (Art. 2 C.P.) and improving the quality of life of the population (Art. 366 C.P.), in so far as, since it is an international instrument aimed at harmonizing the registration procedures, it would strengthen the the country's productive and commercial channels with a view to improving its conditions and promote competitiveness at international level.

The Ministry notes that policies aimed at concluding treaties and agreements of a commercial nature help to promote a development cycle based on the increase in trade flows, which increases the demand for products national, generating new jobs, well-being of the population and reduction in poverty rates.

3.3.2.3. The Treaty and the Rules of Procedure are in line with Article 2or the Constitution, as they seek to ensure the effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties enshrined in the Political Charter. (a) the obligation of the State to promote the internationalisation of economic and commercial relations.

3.3.2.4. The accession to the agreement is the development of the constitutional recognition of the social function of the company, one of whose budgets is the guarantee of the freedom of the economic activity and the private initiative.

3.3.2.5. The Ministry also presents a number of specific considerations in relation to the procedures provided for in Articles 1or to 17 of the Treaty and its corresponding regulation, to conclude that they respect the constitutional mandates that have to do with the protection of intellectual property; access to the administration of justice,

as soon as it contemplates aspects about the domicile and the events in which it requires the granting of powers to advance proceedings before the Office of the Contracting Parties, as well as the cases in which it may be made without representation of a lawyer; the principles of the administrative function, in so far as, by speeding up the procedures, it contributes, within a framework of equality, equity and reciprocity, to transparency, speed and impartiality; due process and legal certainty.

Indicates that the accession of the Colombian State to the Agreement is a manifestation of national sovereignty since, under the TLT, the parties are obliged internationally to comply with reciprocal duties and obligations contained in the international character. For this reason, he believes that the accession of Colombia complies with the provisions of Article 9or the Political Constitution.

3.3.2.6. Finally, the Ministry refers to articles related to the vicissitudes of the Treaty in the light of International Public Law (Articles 18 to 25), to express that the The inclusion of instrumental aspects is not contrary to the Constitution but, on the contrary, the incorporation into the TLT of provisions relating to the accession, ratification, denunciation, transitional provisions, languages, signatures and deposit of the Agreement, are related to the Vienna Convention of 1969, duly approved by the Congress of the Republic by Law 32 of 1985.

3.3.3. For all the above mentioned, the Ministry states that, in the opinion of this institution, the text of the Agreement that is the subject of analysis by this Corporation is fully in line with the Colombian constitutional order.

IV. Concept of the Attorney General of the Nation

The Attorney General of the Nation (e), in concept number 4904, asks the Court to declare the treaty on the right of trade marks and its regulations, adopted, on October 27, 1994, and its approval law, the I_aj"> "Law 1343 of July 31, 2009".

After a detailed account of the legislative process, the Public Ministry concludes that all the constitutional requirements applicable to it were met.

In relation to the material analysis, the Fiscal View expresses that the Treaty on the Law of Marks is an instrument administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)_[4] specialized agency of the United Nations United in the development of an international system of intellectual property, whose main objective is to simplify and harmonize the formal requirements for the registration of marks, that is, to make the registration easier.

Puts forward the Public Ministry that the treaty aims to unify and streamline national and regional trademark registration procedures by simplifying and harmonizing procedures. It follows a brief summary of the 25 articles of the Treaty, as well as the document contained in the Regulation, together with the standard forms. It also presents a recount of the background to the Treaty in the framework of the objectives set out in the Convention establishing the World Organisation for the Purposes of the World Intellectual Property (WIPO) (signed in Stockholm on 14 July 1967). amended on September 28, 1979), of which Colombia has been a party since 1979.

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Fiscal View concludes that the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations constitute a development of the constitutional mandate contained in the article 2or the Policy Charter, as it contributes to promoting overall prosperity and ensuring the effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties enshrined in the Constitution.

For the Public Ministry the procedures and the resources established in the treaty and in its regulations contain simple requirements that respect the due process enshrined in article 29 Superior.

Adds that, moreover, in line with the relief that the constitutional case law has attributed to the protection of intellectual property, the Treaty constitutes an important element in the context of commercial cooperation. In addition, the international economic development of the country and, in addition, in the measure in which it contains a regime of protection of trade marks, is intended to grant the protection provided for in the article 61 of the Policy Charter, within which the relative to the rights of industrial property.

For the Public Ministry, the Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and its Regulations develop the precepts enshrined in the Political Charter, as they respect national sovereignty, the self-determination of peoples and the recognition of principles of international law accepted by Colombia (Art. 9o, inc. 2o of the Political Constitution).

Notes that the Treaty promotes the development of economic and social relations and integration with other nations, taking into account the criteria of reciprocity and national convenience.

Indicates that the Treaty, as an international instrument, respects the limits of state action under the terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Political Constitution, through which the internationalization of political, economic, social and ecological relations is promoted on the established basis of equity, reciprocity and national convenience.

For the reasons stated above, the Attorney General's Office requests this Corporation to declare the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Law, as well as that of its Law of Approval 1343 on July 31, 2009.

V. Constitutional Court considerations

1. Competence of the Constitutional Court in the field of treaties and of treaty approving laws

According to article 241 of the Political Constitution, it is up to the Constitutional Court to define the exilibility of international treaties and laws. In addition to the fact that the law of this Corporation is characterized as being (i) prior to the improvement of the treaty, but after the approval of the law by Congress and the presidential sanction; (ii) automatic, the law must be forwarded by the National Government to the Constitutional Court within the six days after the sanction; and (iii) integral, given that the Court must analyze the formal and material aspects of the international treaty and its approval law in the light of the constitutional text, a review that includes both the process of negotiation and celebration of the instrument at the international level, as the legislative process developed in the Congress_[5].

2. Formal analysis

2.1. Referral of the Treaty and its Rules of Procedure, together with the Aprobatory Act, by the National Government

On August 11, 2009, the Legal Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic referred to this Corporation an authentic copy of Law 1343 of 2009, by means of which " The treaty on trademark law and its regulation, adopted on October 27, 1994, approved, " in Geneva, Switzerland, thereby complying with the provisions of article 10 (10). href="policy_constitution_1991_pr008.html#241"> 241 of the Political Constitution, in the sense that the Government must refer to the Constitutional Court the text of the international treaty and its approval law within six days of the the sanction. In effect, Law 1343 was sanctioned by the President of the Republic on July 31, 2009 and referred to this Corporation on August 11 of the same year, within the term provided for in the constitutional law. referred to.

2.2. Adoption of the Treaty

The Treaty on Trademark Law, hereinafter TLT, by its acronym in English_[6], together with its Rules of Procedure, was concluded on October 27, 1994 in Geneva, Switzerland. The TLT is open to all States parties to the Convention establishing WIPO_[7] and, until 31 December 1999, it was for any other State which, at 27 October 1994, was a party to the Paris Convention and whose Office Trademarks may be registered trademarks. It is also open to certain intergovernmental organisations. Entities empowered to be parties to the Treaty may deposit (i) an instrument of ratification, if they have signed the Treaty, or (ii) an instrument of accession, if they have not signed it. Instruments of ratification or accession must be deposited with the Director General of WIPO._[8]

As Colombia did not subscribe to the Treaty, as expressed by the Director of International Legal Affairs (e) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in communication addressed to the Court on September 23, 2009, " Stated the instrument in mention by the honorable Constitutional Court, it would be appropriate to adhere to that Treaty in accordance with the provisions of its article 19, which states that to be part of the State shall deposit the respective instrument of accession in the event where there is no signed "._[9]

With the Executive Approval, signed by the President of the Republic on July 29, 2008, it was decided to submit the aforementioned Treaty to the consideration of the Congress of the Republic, for the constitutional purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 150, numeral 16, of the Political Constitution, which was fulfilled on July 20, 2008_[10].

2.3. Procedure in the Congress of the Republic of Law number 1343 of July 31, 2009, by means of which " the treaty on the law of trade marks and its regulation, adopted on October 27, is approved 1994 '.

Constitutional Court has pointed out that, with the exception of the requirement to begin its procedure in the Senate of the Republic, the draft laws approving international treaties are not subject to a special procedure, so for their discussion and approval must be followed by the processing of ordinary laws._[11]

According to the certifications that were sent by the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, the legislative record, and the minutes published in the Congress ' Gacetas, the Court was able to determine that the procedure provided for that Corporation for the issuance of Law 1343 of 2009 was as follows:

2.3.1. Procedure in the Senate of the Republic

2.3.1.1. Radication and publication of the bill and the explanatory memorandum

The bill approving the "Treaty on the Law of Marks" and the "Treaty on the Law of Marks", adopted on October 27, 1994 in Geneva, Switzerland, began its process in the Senate of the Republic. The same was established in the General Secretariat of that Corporation, on July 20, 2008, by the National Government, through the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Industry and Tourism, corresponding to the number of 07 of 2008 Senate, as it consists in the certification issued by the General Secretariat of the Senate of the Republic according to which the referred project is located in that office, " ... with each and every one of the requirements constitutional and legal by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism. "_[12].

The bill was distributed to the Second Permanent Constitutional Committee of the Senate of the Republic, international relations, foreign trade, and national defense.

The original text of the project and its corresponding explanatory statement was published in the Congress Gazette number 460 of July 28, 2008)_[13].

2.3.1.2 Ponance for first debate

The favorable presentation for the first debate in the Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic was presented by the Senators Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave (Coordinator); Jairo Clopatofsky Ghisays, Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, Juan Manuel Galán Pachon, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda, Jesús Enrique Pinacue Achicue, Alexandra Moreno Piraquive and Luzelena Restrepo Betancur and published in the Gazette of Congress number 648 of September 19, 2008. In this text, it is proposed to the Second Senate Committee of the Republic to approve in the first debate " (...) Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulation, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, without any amendment or annex statement, with the text equal to that presented by its authors. "_[14].

2.3.1.3 Announcement for First Debate Vote

In compliance with article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the vote of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, by the Second Senate Committee, was initially announced on 23 March. September 2008 and then repeated on 24 of the same month, to be held in the next session, that is, in the session of September 30, 2008, as it is contained in the Minutes number 13 of September 24, 2008, published in the Gazette number 332 of 19 May 2009. The following is the text of the announcement:

"announce the discussion and vote of bills on the instructions of the President of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, announcement of discussion and vote of bills for the next session. (Article 8or Legislative Act number 01, 2003).

1. Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate, by means of which the "Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations"adopted, adopted on October 27, 1994.

Authors: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism.

Speakers: Honorable Senators Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave (Coordinator), Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, Jairo Clopatofsky Ghisays, Juan Manuel Galan Pachon, Luzelena Restrepo Betancur, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda, Jesús Enrique Pinacue Achicue and Alexandra Moreno Piraquive.

Publications:

Bill: Congress Gazette number 460, 2008.

First Debate: Congress Gazette number 648, 2008. "

At the end of the session, the President of the Second Senate Committee, Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave, called for " (...) next Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. m. ".

The following Tuesday, September 30, a joint session of the second Senate and House committees took place. This session did not discuss or approve the 07 Senate Project, which was announced for the next session, in the following terms:

The President of the Second Senate Committee Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

Thank you very much, there is a deliberative quorum for now in the Second Committee of the Senate and a quorum decision in the Second Committee of the House, we allow ourselves to read, not only to the Order of the Day, but also to the Second Committee of the Senate. That later, we are not going to move forward with the debate that Senator Juan Manuel Galan had planned, we want to announce projects for tomorrow.

(...)

IV

Announcement of discussion and voting of bills for the Second Senate Committee on instructions from the President of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, announcement of discussion and vote of bills for the next session. (Article 8or Legislative Act number 01, 2003).

(...)

2. Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate,means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure is adopted, adopted on October 27, 1994. Authors: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism.

Honorable speakers: Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave (Coordinator), Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, Jairo Clopatofsky Ghisays, Juan Manuel Galan Pachon, Luzelena Restrepo Betancur, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda, Jesús Enrique Pinacue Achicue and Alexandra Moreno Piraquive.

Publications:

Bill GCongress Gazette number 460, 2008.

First Debate: Congress Gazette number 648, 2008.

(...)

VI

What the honorable Congressmen propose

As for the announcement of projects, following your instructions, Mr. President, let me inform you that in the Order of the Day you are on the desks of the honorable Senators and Representatives, you will find the complete information in the numbers, titles, publications, rapporteurs, authors and publications of the papers of the bills. These are the Law Projects numbers 101 of 2008 Senate; 07 of 2008 Senate; 54 of 2008 Senate; 53 of 2008 Senate; 51 of 2008 Senate; 266 of 2008 Senate and 095 of 2007 House; 325 of 2008 Senate and 251 of 2008 House. They are in the Order of the Day for consideration by the honourable Senators and Representatives for their subsequent approval.

Mr. President Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

Thank you very much, we still do not give you the approval of the Order of the Day, because of the lack of the decision-making quorum of the Senate of the Republic, (...) "

(...)

In the course of the session the honourable Senators are present:

Jairo Clopatofsky Ghisays

Manuel Enriquez Rosero

Jesus Enrique Pinacue Achicue

Juan Manuel Galan

Luzelena Restrepo Betancur

Marta Lucia Ramirez de Rincon

Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda

Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda.

Interpellation of the President of the Second Senate Committee, Senator Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

Mr. Chancellor I apologize that I interrupt you, we already have the quorum decision, by the honorable Senators of the Republic, therefore, I want to ask the Senate Committee Senators: Do you approve the proposed Day Order?

The Secretary of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz:

Responds to the Presidency that the Order of the Day has been approved in the Second Senate Committee.

(...)

At the end of the session the Chairman of the Second Senate Committee expressed:

" Thank you very much, we all get out of the session and the Second Senate Committee is called for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. m. and we echo the call of the President of the Second Commission of the House also for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. m. Thank you very much.

The session is lifted. "

2.3.1.4 First Debate Approval

At the session of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, on October 7, 2008, the discussion and approval took place, in the first debate, of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, in accordance with the announcement that was made in the session of the 30th of September 2008. The bill was approved by a unanimous vote of the eleven senators present, of the thirteen senators that make up the aforementioned Commission, as stated in the 2008 Act No. 14, published in the Congress Gazette number 333 of May 19, 2009.

With regard to the deliberative and decision-making quorum, the Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee informed this Corporation that: " regarding the deliberative and decision-making quorum, it is reported that there has been no Request for verification of the deliberative and decision-making quorum during the discussion of the aforementioned bill, this one was made up of eleven (11) of the thirteen (13) senators who make up the Senate Committee Second, some of whom answered a list at the beginning of the session and others that were present during the course of the same "._[15]

As noted, the approval of the project is highlighted in Minutes number 14, in the following terms:

" Mr. President Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

He asks the Secretary to read the proposal with which the presentation ends.

Take the word Mr. Secretary:

Proposition

I approve in the first debate the Bill of Law No. 07 of 2008 Senate, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its regulations, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, is, without any amendment or declaration annexed with the text equal to that presented by its authors.

Mr. President Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

Puts into consideration the proposition with which the report ends. Does the Commission approve it?

The Secretary responds:

What has been approved in the report.

Mr. President Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

Reading the article, the Commission wants it to be read or to be omitted.

The Secretary:

Reports that there is the read default request for the articulate.

Mr. President Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave:

In consideration of the project's articulated. It is approved by the Commission.

The Secretary:

Responds that the project's articulated has been approved.

Project title.

The Secretary gives a reading to the title: By means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted in Geneva on 27 October 1994, is adopted.

The President:

Submits the title of the project to consideration, and asks if it is approved by the Commission.

The Secretary:

Responds that the project title has been approved.

The President:

Question if the Commission wants this project to have a second debate.

The Secretary:

Responds that you do want it.

The President:

Reports that the same Senators and Senators are appointed as speakers for the first debate (...) "_[16].

2.3.1.5 Ponance for Second Debate

The presentation for the second debate in the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic was presented by Senators Manuel Ramiro Velasquez (Coordinator); Jairo Clopatofsky Ghisays, Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, Juan Manuel Galan Pachon, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez Castañeda, Jesús Enrique Pinacue Achicue, Alexandra Moreno Piraquive and Luzelena Restrepo Betancur and appears published in the Congress Gazette number 868 of November 27, 2008.

2.3.1.6 Announcement for Second Debate Vote

In compliance with article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the vote of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, by the Plenary of the Senate, was announced on December 1, 2008, for be held in the next session, that is, in the session to be held on December 2, 2008, as stated in the Minutes No, 31, published in the Congress Gazette number 116 of March 12, 2009. The announcement text is as follows:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved in the next session.

Projects to discuss and vote at the next Plenary Session of the Senate of the Republic.

(...)

Bills for Second Debate

(...)

Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate, by which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, is approved.

Later, in the same report, read:

" Being 7:48 p. Mr President, the Presidency is meeting and convening for the day on Tuesday 2 December 2008 at 3:00 p. m. ".

2.3.1.7 Second Debate Approval

Because, as it appears from the consecutive minutes, on December 2, 2008, the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic, the approval of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate in that Corporation occurred in the session of 3 of December 2008, as stated in Act number 32 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 148 of March 19, 2009. According to the information submitted by the Secretary General of the Senate, by means of communication of 14 September 2009, the approval was carried out by unanimous vote of the ninety-eight senators present, of the Senators who make up the Corporation, since no verification of the quorum was requested or a nominal vote was requested.

The act states the approval of the project as follows:

The Presidency tells the Secretariat to continue with the next bill of the Order of the Day.

Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, is approved.

Presidency granted the use of the word to Senator Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, who gave a brief statement on the scope of the treaty. The Secretariat was then asked to read to the proposal with which the report ends:

By the Secretariat, the positive proposal with which the report of the report ends is read.

The Presidency submits to the plenary the proposal read, and closed its discussion, it gives its approval.

SECOND DEBATE OPENS

At the request of the honorable Senator Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, the Presidency asks the plenary if it accepts the omission of the reading of the article and, closed its discussion, it responds in the affirmative.

The Presidency submits to the plenary the article of the bill, and closed its discussion question: Does the proposed article adopt the plenary? and it responds in the affirmative.

The Presidency tells the Secretariat to read the title of the project.

By Secretariat is read to the title of Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate, by means of which the treaty on the Law of Marks and its Regulations, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, is.

Read this, the Presidency submits it to the plenary, and closed its discussion question: Do the members of the Corporation approve the title read? And they give it their approval.

Fulfilled the constitutional, legal, and regulatory procedures, the Presidency asks: Do the senators present that the bill approved is the law of the Republic? And these respond in the affirmative. "_[17]

2.3.2. Procedure in the House of Representatives

2.3.2.1. House Bill Radication in the House of Representatives

Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate, by which the Treaty on the Law of Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted in Geneva on October 27, 1994, was, was established in the House of Representatives, on 10 December 2008, with the number 230 of 2008 Camara. _[18]

2.3.3.2. Presentation for third debate

The presentation for the third debate of Bill No. 07 of 2007 Senate, 230 of 2008, was presented to the Second Commission of the House of Representatives by Representative Luis Felipe Barrios and appears published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 213 of April 15, 2009.

2.3.2.3. Announcement for vote in third debate

In compliance with article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the vote of Bill 07 of 2007 Senate, Act 230 of 2008, by the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, was announced on April 22, 2009, to be held on the next date to be communicated in a timely manner, as evidenced by Act No. 26 of April 22, 2009, published in the Congress Gazette 543 of 02 July 2009. The announcement text is as follows:

President, Representative Pedro Pablo Trujillo Ramírez:

Next point of the Order of the Day.

Makes use of the word Mrs. Secretaría General, Dr. Pilar Rodríguez Arias:

Yes Mr. President.

Bill Announcements to comply with Article 8or Legislative Act No. 01 of 2003. These bills will be discussed and voted on in the next session of the Second House Committee, as you have ordered it.

(...)

Third project to be discussed and voted on in the next session of the Commission:

3. Bill No. 07 of 2008 Senate, 230 of 2008 Chamber, by means of which the Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks and its Regulations, adopted on October 27, 1994, is approved.

(...)

The announcements made, Mr. President, ordered by you.

Later, in the same report, read:

"President, Representative Pedro Pable Trujillo Ramírez, has used the floor.

'(...) the session is closed and it is called for the next date that we will be referring to them in due course.'

The session is closed at 12:56 p.m. m. "

2.3.2.4. Third debate approval

The passage of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate 230 of 2008 House, by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, occurred in accordance with the announcement that was made in the previous session. As a result, the project was approved in the session following the one on April 22, 2009, that is, it was approved at the session on April 28, 2009, as stated in Act No. 27 of that date, published in the Gazette of the Congress number 544 of 02 July 2009.

Similarly, work on the legislative file certification of the General Secretariat of the Second House of Representatives, under which the Draft in mention was approved by a unanimous vote of 17 Representatives attended the session._[19]

2.3.2.5. Lecture for the fourth debate

The presentation for the fourth debate in the House of Representatives, of Bill No. 07 of 2007 Senado- 230 of 208 House, was presented by Representative Luis Felipe Barrios and appears published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 384 of May 28, 2009._[20]

2.3.2.6. Announcement for vote in fourth debate

In compliance with article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the vote of Bill 07 of 2008 Senate, 230 of 2008 House; by the Plenary of the House of Representatives, was announced on June 17, 2009, to be held at the next session, this is, at the session of June 18, 2009, as is apparent from the Act No. 188 of June 17, 2009, published in the Gazette of the Congress number 840 of September 03, 2009._[21] The text of the announcement is as follows:

Next point of the Order of the Day.

The Secretary General of the House of Representatives, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports:

Mr President with your coming and with due respect we already have to proceed with the announcement.

The Session is headed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dr. German Varon Cotrino:

We proceed then to the announcement of what the reconciliations and the bills announced for tomorrow are from the one in the afternoon.

Deputy Secretary General of the House of Representatives, Dr. Flor Marina Daza Ramirez, reports:

The following projects are announced for the plenary session of June 18, in which bills or legislative acts are debated according to the Legislative Act of July 3, 2003. Reconciliation reports:

(...)

Bill No. 230 of 2008 House, 007 of 2008 Senate, by which the treaty on trademark law and its regulation, adopted on October 27, 1994, is approved.

(...)

Mr. President, the bills have been announced.

The session is governed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dr. German Varon Cotrino:

The session is closed and is scheduled for tomorrow at one in the afternoon._[22]

2.3.2.7 Approval in fourth debate

The passage of Bill 07 of 2007 Senate 230 of 2008, by the Plenary of the House of Representatives, took place on June 18, 2009, as contained in Act No. 189 of the same date, published in the Gazette of the Congress No 861 of 8 September 2009.

According to the certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, referred to this Court on September 23, 2009_[23], at the Plenary Session of June 18, 2009, Bill 230 of 2008, 07 of 2008 Senate, was considered and approved, by a majority of those present, and by ordinary vote, with attendance to the session of one hundred and fifty-three Representatives.

The final text of the bill approved in the Plenary of the House of Representative is published in the Gazette of Congress number 563 of July 10, 2009. _[24]

2.4. Presidential sanction

The Bill of Law number 07 of 2008 Senate and number 230 of 2008 Chamber was initially referred to the President of the Republic for his executive sanction by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic, by officio radicado on July 13 2009. With its trade of 22 July 2009, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency returned the project without the corresponding procedure, considering that in the file it did not review all the documents that would allow the President of the Republic to carry out the review. The Project was again sent by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic by trade established in the Presidency of the Republic on July 23, 2009. On July 31, 2009, the President of the Republic sanctioned Law 1343 by means of which " The Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks and its Rules of Procedure, adopted on October 27, is approved. 1994 ".

2.5. Conclusions regarding the legislative procedure available in the Congress of the Republic

From the previous count of the legislative procedure, concludes the Court that the Bill of Law 07 of 2008 Senado- 230 of 2008 Chamber, that resulted in the expedition of the Law 1343 of 2009, has partially fulfilled With the formal requirements required by the Political Constitution, then, it will be seen later, in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives the prior announcement for the vote of the bill did not meet the constitutional requirements.

Below are the findings of the constitutionality study in relation to each of the stages of the legislative process:

2.5.1. Notes the Chamber that, as stated in the recount of the legislative procedure, the executive approval of the TLT was signed by the President of the Republic on July 29, 2008 and that the case of the respective bill in the Senate of the Republic was held on July 20, 2008.

According to the constitutional case law, the executive approval has two effects: the first is that such approval is to heal any vice that has been presented in the negotiation of the international instrument because of the who participated as a negotiator for the Colombian State, when that takes place; and the second, to have the international instrument put to the consideration of the Congress of the Republic. Additionally, in those multilateral treaties whose original subscription the Colombian State has not attended, the executive approval may be taken as the externalization of the interest and the intention of the President of the Republic, responsible of the direction of international relations (art. 189, No. 2 of the Political Constitution) to adhere to the same_[25]

The Court has pointed out that the presentation to the Congress of the Republic of an international treaty that does not have the executive approval could give rise to a procedural defect, due to the lack of legitimacy of the ministers who make the project radiation._[26] However, this Corporation has also pointed out that such irregularity must be taken for the purpose of being remedied when, however, at the time when the project was established, it had not yet subscribed to it. President of the Republic the executive approval, this happens afterwards, during the process of the project in the Congress of the Republic, which allows to verify the intention of the President of the Republic, implicitly manifested through its ministers when the bill is based, to adhere to the international instrument and to give it course in the legislative body._[27]

In this case, the subscription by the President of the Republic of the Executive Approval of the Trademark Treaty and its Rules of Procedure, on July 29, 2008, healed the detected irregularity, in so far as it ratifies the legitimacy of the ministers. that the bill was approved on July 20, 2008.

2.5.2. The bill initiated its procedure in the Senate of the Republic, as provided for in article 154 of the Charter, and was assigned to the Second Permanent Constitutional Relations Committee international trade, foreign trade and national defense, as required by Law 3of 1992.

2.5.3. The official publications were made, as set out in the numeral 10 of the article 157 Superior and other concordant norms. In effect, the publications were given as follows: (1) Before giving course to the respective Senate Committee, the project was published, along with the explanatory statement, at the Congress Gazette 460 of July 28, 2008; (2) The keynote for the first debate in the Senate Second Committee was published in the Congress Gazette number 648 of September 19, 2008; (3) the presentation for the second debate in the The plenary of the Senate of the Republic was published in the Gazette of the Congress number 868 of November 27, 2008; (4) the final text approved in the plenary of the Senate of the Republic was published in the Congress Gazette number 953 of December 19, 2008; (5) for first debate in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives was published in the Gazette of Congress number 213 of April 15, 2009; (6) the presentation for second debate in the plenary of the House of Representatives Representatives were published in the Congress Gazette No. 384 of May 28, 2009; and (7) the text Final approved in the plenary of the House of Representatives was published in the Gazette of Congress number 563 of July 10, 2009.

2.5.4. The bill complied, in its four debates, with the requirement of the previous announcement, provided for in article 8or Legislative Act No 01 of 2003, which added the article 160 of the Constitution, and according to which " No bill will be put to a session vote other than that previously announced, The notice that a Draft will be put to the vote will be given the presidency of each chamber or commission in session other than that in which it is The vote", as follows:

2.5.4.1. In the first debate in the Second Committee of the Senate, (i) the project was duly announced when the expressions were used "announcement of discussion and vote of bills"; (ii) the announcement was made in a different session (30 of September 2008) and prior to the vote (7 October 2008); (iii) the date of the vote is clearly determinable by the use of the expression "for the next session"; and (iv) the vote was taken in the session indicated in the announcement, as this was done on September 30, 2008, to take of the next session, which took place on 7 October 2008, where it was actually voted on.

Warns the Court that, although in the joint session of the second Senate and House committees of September 30, 2008, the announcement of the projects was made "for the next session" and that at the end of the session convened the Senate Second Committee "for tomorrow", the approval of Bill 07 of 2008 Senado- 230 of 2008 Chamber was produced at the session of October 7. In reviewing the minutes of the Commission's sessions, it can be seen that there is a double consecutive number, which corresponds to the ordinary sessions of the Second Committee of the Senate, and the joint sessions of the Committees. Second Senate and House. The consecutive order of the minutes of the ordinary sessions of the Second Senate Committee shows that between the ordinary session held on September 24, 2008, which consists of the Minutes No. 13 and the ordinary session held on October 7 In 2008, as outlined in the No. 14 Act, there was no ordinary meeting of the Second Senate Committee. For its part, the joint sitting of the second Senate and the House committees of 30 September 2008 corresponds to the Minutes No. 1 of that type of session and the Minutes No. 2 gives an account of the fact that the next joint meeting of the second committees produced on 26 November 2008. In this way, it can be noted that, between 30 September 2008, when the announcement was reiterated for discussion and approval of the project, and on 7 October 2008, when it was effectively discussed and approved, there was no ordinary session of the Senate Second Committee, nor were there any joint sessions of the second Senate and House committees. Thus, the approval of the bill in the Second Senate Committee was produced in the session immediately following the one in which it was announced its discussion and vote.

In this particular case, the Court's case law has stated that when the announcement for discussion and approval of projects is made, it refers to a certain or determinable date, and subsequently, on that date, no session of the a corresponding legislative cell, the ad chain is not considered to be interrupted, nor is it required to make a new announcement, if the discussion and approval of the corresponding project is carried out in the session immediately following that in the the announcement was made._[28] That was what happened in the present case, as shown by the to examine the following order of the minutes and according to the certification issued, at the request of the Court, by the Secretary General of the Second Senate of the Senate of the Republic, according to which on 1, 2, 3 and 6 October 2008 there was no This is a matter of course, and I would like to make it clear that we are not in a position to be able to vote on the report, but I would like to make it clear that we are not going to vote on it.

2.5.4.2. In the second debate in the Senate Plenary, (i) the announcement of the bill was carried out in due form, when the expressions are used "announces the bills to be discussed and approved"; (ii) the announcement was made in a different session (1 December 2008) and prior to the vote (3 December 2008); (iii) the date of the vote is clearly determinable as the expression "is used in the next session"; and (iv) the vote took place in the session indicated in the announcement, since this was done on December 1, 2008, to be held at the next session, which took place on 3 December 2008, where it was effectively voted on.

Warns the Court that, although in the session of December 1, 2008 it was called for "on Tuesday, December 2, 2008" on that day there was no plenary session of the Senate of the Republic_[29], which took place on next day, which is why, according to the constitutional case law_[30], there was no need to repeat the announcement, because the project was proceeded to vote on the first occasion in which the sessions were resumed for debate and approval of projects.

2.5.4.3. In the third debate in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, however, to make the announcement, the expressions "Announcements of bills to comply with article 8were used." of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, and "project to be discussed and voted on in the next session of the Commission" and that it was held in a different session (22 April 2009) and prior to the vote (28 April 2009), following the line drawn by the Recent decision_[31], in which a vice was found in the ad in relation to a project that was dealt with on the same dates as the present, concludes the Court that, in this Commission, the requirement of the prior notice provided for by Article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 does not has been fully complied with.

In effect, such a corno was pointed out by the Court in the aforementioned providence " (...) the announcement for the vote of a bill, must be made for a session after the one in which the announcement is made, 'as long as it is convoke for (...) a pre-fixed and determined future date, or at least, determinable ,_[32] In the case under examination, the congressmen were summoned for the ' next session ', but at the end of it, was not determined when that next meeting would be and it was simply expressed that this date would be ' referenced to future '. In this case, having no element to determine when it would be Next session, neither the congressmen nor the citizenry knew for sure when the Commission would be sessionary"

Added the Court that " [c] omo that the ad for voting on projects should be conducted during the legislative cell sessions and with the full of constitutional requirements, any informal summons performed outside of the sessions or without the necessary elements that offer certainty about the date of the meeting and the object of the session to those who have an interest in a given project, it lacks validity (...) ", criterion that, when applied In this opportunity, it causes the unconstitutionality of the Law href="ley_1343_2009.html#1"> 1343 2009.

2.5.4.4. In the fourth debate in the Plenary of the House of Representatives, (i) the bill was duly announced, with the use of the expressions " The following projects are announced for plenary session on June 18, in which the discuss bills or legislative acts according to Legislative Act 01 July 2003"; (ii) the announcement was made in a separate session (17 June 2009) and prior to the vote (18 June 2009); (iii) the date of the vote is clearly determinable when the expression is used " is quoted for tomorrow to the "; and (iv) the vote was held in the session indicated in the announcement, as it was done on June 17, 2009 and the draft was voted on in the following session, that is, at the session on June 18, 2009.

2.5.5. The terms provided for in Article 160 of the Constitution were fulfilled. Both the 8 days that must mediate between the first and the second debate in the same Chamber, such as the 15 days that must elapse between the approval of the bill in one Chamber and the initiation of the debate in the other.

2.5.5.1. The first debate in the Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic was held on October 7, 2008 and the second debate in the Plenary of the Senate was held on December 3, 2008, with more than 8 days of difference. In the House of Representatives, the first debate in the Commission was held on 28 April 2009 and the second plenary debate was held on 18 June 2009, with a difference of more than 8 days.

2.5.5.2, on the other hand, between the approval of the bill in the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic, which took place on December 3, 2008, and the initiation of the debate in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, on April 28, 2009, It was a time of more than a fortnight that the Constitution requires.

2.5.6. The project was discussed and approved in four debates, in Commissions and Plenaries of both Houses, according to the precept of the article 157 Superior. As for their discussion and approval, it was in accordance with the quorum and the majorities required by Articles 146 and 147 of the Charter and the Regulation of the Congress. In all cases, its approval was obtained by ordinary vote, unanimously by the congressmen in attendance, as stated in the Acts referred to in the previous act, and as ratified by the certifications issued by the the respective secretaries-general of the committees and plenary members annexed to the file.

2.5.7. The project was considered at most two legislatures, as required by Article 162 of the Political Charter. This is evident from the date on which the bill was established in the Senate of the Republic, which occurred on July 20, 2008, and the date on which it was approved at the Plenary Session of the House of Representatives, What happened on June 18, 2009. Thus, the project has been started in the legislature that began on July 20, 2008 and ended on June 20, 2009, and was approved during the same legislature.

2.5.8, As previously indicated, the bill that culminated in the issuance of Law 1343 of 2009, obtained the corresponding presidential sanction, on July 31, 2009, thus fulfilling the provided in item 157 , number 4.

2.5.9. In determining the consequences of the procedural defect detected in the manner in which the announcement was made for the vote on the bill in the first debate in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, the Coite, in the 2010 Auto 053, made the considerations which, as they are fully applicable at this opportunity, are generally reiterated below.

The Court, in Judgment C-576 of 2006, established that, when a failure to hold the announcements for debates occurs at a time after the vote in the Plenary of the Senate, it is considers a subsable vice that has the consequence that the Court has the return of the law approving an international treaty to the Congress to remedy the vice and continue its process from the moment it occurred, when the other conditions of subsability are met.

this case, the vice is subsable because, as stated, both in the Second Commission and in the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic, the structural stages of the legislative procedure were respected and only in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives was omitted to comply with the requirement set out in article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003.

By the above and in accordance with what is set out in the paragraph of Article 241 of the Charter, Bill No. 07 of 2008. Senate, 230 of 2008 House of Representatives, must return to this last legislative cell so that its Commission Second Permanent Constitutional compliance with the provisions of article 8or of the Act Legislative 01 of 2003 and from there continue with the corresponding legislative procedure.

Congress will have until December 16, 2010, the date of the end of the session of the legislature that is due to begin on July 20, to conclude the process of forming the law. As this Corporation has pointed out, an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in article 162 of the Constitution, since the limit of two legislatures is applies exclusively to the original formation of the law, without being able to extend to additional time limits set by the Constitutional Court in order to remedy procedural defects._[33]

Finalized the procedure in Congress and the presidential sanction in the terms set forth in the Political Charter, Law 1343 of 2009 must be sent to the Court to decide on its exequability, as provided for in the paragraph of article 241 Superior.

On the latter particular, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it relates to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1343 of 2009. This is because, as this Corporation has maintained _[34] the vice-healing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the project and the Resulting approval law._[35]

IV. Decision

On the merits of the above, the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First.-By the Presidency of the Republic, Return to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1343 of 31 July 2009, by means of which " The treaty on the right of trade marks and their regulations, adopted on 27 October 1994 ", in order to process the remedy of the procedural vice identified in this providence.

Second.- Concede to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of 60 days, counted from the notification of this order to the Presidency of the House, to remedy the The vice detected in this providence.

Third.-Once the vice referred to the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until December 16, 2010, to fulfill the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth.-Fulfilling the previous procedure, the Presidency of the Republic will refer to the Court the Law 1343 of 2009, to decide definitively on its exilibility.

Notify, contact, publish, insert, in the Constitutional Court Gazette, file the file and comply.

The President,

MAURICIO GONZÁLEZ CROW.

Maria Victoria Calle Correa, absent in committee, Juan Carlos Henao Perez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, absent in commission, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Magistrates.

The General Secretariat,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ.

* * *

1 Due to the extension of the text of the treaty, the same can be found in the Official Journal number 47.427 of 31 July 2009.

2 By Trademark Law Treaty.

3 The intervener cites the C-002 1996, C-975 2002, C-509 of 2004, and C-833 Sentences of 2007.

4 The Constitutional Court, in Judgment C-1183 of 2000, declared the 2000 Act 565 exequible, by means of which the " Treaty of the World Organization of the World Copyright Intellectual Property".

5 Cfr. Constitutional Court, Sentences C-721 of 2007, M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa and C-468 of 1997, M.P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero.

6 Trademark Law Treaty (TLT).

7 World Intellectual Property Organization.

8 According to Articles 19 and 22 of the Treaty.

9 Folio 84 of the file's main notebook.

10 Folio 262 of Test notebook No. 4. See certification issued by the Coordinator (e) of the Treaty Area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the date on which the executive approval decree was signed. Portfolio of the dossier.

11 See C-387 Statement 2008.

12 Gazette of Congress 460 of 2008.

13 Pags. 1-23, to folios 61 to 83 of the No. 4 test notebook.

14 Pags. 9-12, to folios 41-44 of the No 4 test notebook.

15 Folios 1 and 2, Test Notebook No. 4

16 Congress Gazette No. 333 of 2009, Pag. 13.

17 Gaceta del Congreso No 148, pags. 7, 48, to folios 92 and 133 of the No 4 test notebook.

18 Folio 390 of Test Notebook No. 4

19 P. 124 of test notebook No. 3

20 Pp. 1-18, to folios 354-373 of the No 3 test notebook.

21 P. 116 to folios 115 to 120 of the No. 1 test notebook

22 Congress Gazette No. 840 of 2009, p.p. 115 and 117

23 Folio 3, test notebook No. 3.

24 See Folio 380, test notebook No. 3.

25 View 2009 C-285 Statement

26 See 2010 C-377 Statement

27 Ibid.

28 Query, among others, the C-309 2007, C-502 2007, C-615 2009, C-801 , 2009, and C- 377 from 2010.

29 As a sign of mourning for the death of former representative and Senator Jose Gonzalo Gutierrez.

30 In the recent C-377 judgment in 2010, the Court dealt with a project that was announced and voted on on the same dates as those of the Court. The Court found that the procedure was in accordance with the Constitution, since, according to the case-law, to the extent that, between the session in which the announcement was made and the date was called for a certain or determinable date, and the one in which the The vote did not take place in the plenary session of the House of Representatives, which is why it was not necessary to renew the announcement.

31 Auto 053 of 2010, M.P. Maria Victoria Calle Correa

32 Constitutional Court. Judgment C-644 , 2004 (MP: Rodrigo Escobar Gil, SV: Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes).

33 Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto 232 of 2007 (MP. Jaime Cordoba Trivino, with SV by Jaime Araujo Renteria. See also the A-089 of 2005 (MP. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa).

34 Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863 of 2006 (MP: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), in which the constitutionality of an approving law that had received double numbering by mistake was examined, after the Congress of the Republic had remedied a vice detected by the Constitutional Court: " In the case that we are dealing with, the Corle warns the following. (i) the first law number-869 of 2004-is the one that identifies the approved law subject to the control exercised in the present process; (ii) the will of the Legislator, in compliance with the Order 089 of 2005, was to correct the vice of form established by this Corporation in the formation of Law 896 of 2004; (iii) the Draft Law was always the same, that is, at 212/03 Senate-111/03 Chamber, as can be confirmed in all the papers and Now, the debate has taken place in Congress, and in its referral for a presidential sanction. committed an administrative error in the numbering, having been assigned a second number to the same law after having been remedied the vice in the formation of the same. However, this error does not change the content of the law or affect the process of its formation in the Congress of the Republic. For the Court therefore, the present analysis of constitutionality is understood to be carried out on the Law 896 of 2004 which approved the "Convention between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Colombia". Bolivia for the recovery of cultural goods and other specific stolen, imported or illegally exported in the city of La Paz, at twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand one (' 2001). See also Autos A-018/07 and A-057/07.

35 View Auto 232 of 2007 (PM. Jaime Cordoba Trivino).