Indecopi denies accusations of corruption against comedians following controversy over brand.

In an unexpected turn of events in the realm of entertainment and legality in Peru, the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) has responded to the corruption allegations made by comedians Jorge Luna and Ricardo Mendoza. The comedians' claims have sparked significant controversy, especially following their performance at Madison Square Garden, where their success has placed them in the public eye. Indecopi has denied the comedians' accusations, labeling them as unfounded and lacking evidential support. The agency, in an official statement, defended the transparency and rigor of its trademark registration processes, asserting that decisions are made solely based on technical criteria and not on irregular negotiations. In this way, Indecopi rejects the possibility of any undue payments in the registration process of the controversial brand "Hablando Huevadas." The controversy began when the institution denied the registration of the brand, arguing that the name was inappropriate and violated good morals. This decision led Luna and Mendoza to accuse Indecopi officials of demanding a bribe of S/ 20,000 to facilitate the registration process, claiming that their brand had been rejected five times without adequate justification. During a recent episode of their program "Solo queremos conversar," Mendoza did not hesitate to label the situation as irregular. He recounted that he had been offered a solution to the problem in exchange for payment, suggesting a distribution scheme among the implicated officials. His partner, Cathy Sáenz, also joined the accusations, stating that they had evidence identifying the officials who allegedly requested the bribe. In response to these allegations, Indecopi has taken a firm stance, announcing that it will initiate legal action against the comedians for what it considers serious accusations that damage the institution's reputation. The agency has demanded that Luna and Mendoza provide concrete evidence for their claims, calling for responsibility and aligning with its anti-corruption policy. This conflict not only calls into question the integrity of Indecopi but also affects the assets and commercial viability of the comedians, who argue that the inability to register their brand has resulted in significant financial losses. Luna's frustration became evident when he stated that the rejection of the registration was not due to a lack of merit in their proposal but rather the incompetence of certain officials. Moreover, this situation has sparked a broader debate about transparency and ethics in Peruvian public institutions. The corruption allegations, although yet to be proven, add a layer of concern regarding the need for reforms in how intellectual property registrations are handled in the country. The significance of this conflict extends beyond the brand "Hablando Huevadas." It has become an emblematic case that tests the limits of freedom of expression in the entertainment sector, as well as public trust in the institutions that are supposed to ensure fair competition and the protection of intellectual property. Meanwhile, the community of Luna and Mendoza's followers is closely watching the outcome of this situation, which has captured media attention and ignited a debate about freedom and the limits of criticism in the context of humor. The actions taken in the coming days will determine not only the future of the comedians' brand but also the credibility of the involved institutions. The resolution of this controversy is awaited with great anticipation, as it could set important precedents for both the cultural sector and public administration in Peru, in a context where the fight against corruption remains a matter of national relevance.