The WestCOL vs. W WETSUITCOL Case: Why Registering and Monitoring Your Trademark Is Key

Registering a trademark is only the first step.

Monitoring it and actively defending it is what truly protects your business, your reputation, and your identity.

The WestCOL vs. W WETSUITCOL case, resolved by the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC), is a clear — and very recent — example of why trademark protection cannot remain merely on paper.

In this article, we explain what happened, why the SIC denied the registration of the trademark W WETSUITCOL, and what lessons this case leaves for business owners, entrepreneurs, and content creators.

The Context: The WestCOL Trademark and Its Protection in Colombia

Content creator WestCOL holds valid trademark protection in Colombia for entertainment services, specifically:

• Live audiovisual shows
  
  
• Audiovisual recording and production services
  
  

This protection not only identifies his services in the marketplace, but also allows him to legally defend his stage name, reputation, and commercial value against third parties.

Here is the key point:

👉 His name is not just an alias — it is an asset protected under trademark law.

The W WETSUITCOL Application: What Was Attempted to Be Registered?

A third party filed an application before the SIC to register the trademark W WETSUITCOL, intended to identify:

• Advertising services
  
  
• Online commercialization services
  
  

Why Did the SIC Deny the Registration of W WETSUITCOL?

The content creator WestCOL, exercising the rights granted by his trademark, filed an opposition against the registration. 

As a result, the SIC concluded that the requested sign reproduced both the root and the ending of the artistic name “WestCOL,” and that the inclusion of the term “SUIT” was not sufficient to eliminate the direct evocation of the content creator.

According to the authority:

• The sign generated an immediate association with WestCOL
  
  
• The relevant public could assume an economic, commercial, or authorized relationship that did not exist
  
  
• The identity and prestige of the legitimate owner were directly affected
  
  

In other words, it did not need to be identical — it was enough that it clearly and directly evoked a public figure who was already positioned in the market.

Although the services were not exactly the same as those protected by the WESTCOL trademark, the authority analyzed the sign as a whole and its impact on the public.

The Legal Basis: Andean Decision 486, Article 136(e)

The decision was based on Article 136(e) of Andean Community Decision 486 of 2000, which prohibits the registration of signs that improperly affect the rights of third parties.

The rule establishes that the following may not be registered as trademarks:

“Signs that affect the identity or prestige of natural or legal persons, especially when they consist of the name, pseudonym, or signs identified by the public as belonging to a person different from the applicant, unless there is express consent.”

In this case:

• There was no authorization from WestCOL
  
  
• The applicant was a different person
  
  
• The risk of harm was real and direct
  
  

For these reasons, the application was rejected.

An Additional Risk: Blocking the Legitimate Owner

The SIC also highlighted something particularly delicate.

Granting registration to W WETSUITCOL would have meant granting a third party an industrial property right, which includes the authority to:

• Prevent others from using the sign
  
  
• Oppose subsequent trademark applications
  
  
• Limit the commercial exploitation of the name
  
  

👉 In practice, this could have affected WestCOL himself, restricting the use of his artistic name in certain contexts.

This point demonstrates why failing to monitor a trademark can ultimately work against the legitimate owner.

The Key Lesson: Registration Is Not Enough — Monitoring Is Essential

This case leaves a fundamental lesson for any trademark holder:

Registering a trademark is only the first step.
True protection begins afterward.

Because WestCOL remained attentive to new trademark applications being filed, he was able to exercise his right of opposition within the legal deadline and prevent a potentially confusing sign — one that could have infringed his rights — from being registered.

If that active monitoring had not existed, the outcome would have been different.

Trademark protection is not limited to registration before the competent authority. It requires constant and strategic management, including:

• Ongoing market surveillance
  
  
• Monitoring of new trademark applications
  
  
• Timely opposition to conflicting signs
  
  
• A well-structured legal strategy
  
  

This applies especially to:

• Content creators
  
  
• Influencers
  
  
• Personal brands
  
  
• Companies with high market recognition
  
  

If you do not monitor your trademark, third parties may attempt — legally — to appropriate signs that are very close to your identity.

What Can Business Owners and Content Creators Learn?

• Your name is also a trademark if you use it commercially
  
  
• Early registration reduces future risks
  
  
• Similarity does not need to be exact to create conflict
  
  
• Monitoring prevents late oppositions and costly litigation
  
  
• A trademark strategy protects reputation and commercial value
  
  

Strategic Support: Beyond Registration

At Nexo Legal, we support our clients throughout the entire trademark lifecycle:

• Strategic registration
  
  
• Active trademark monitoring
  
  
• Defense against third parties
  
  
• Legal structuring of personal and commercial brands
  
  

Our approach is not only legal — it is preventive and strategic, ensuring that your identity is not exposed or weakened in the marketplace.