A Costa Rican distribution company has received a court-ordered hold on trademarks held in Costa Rica by The Quaker Oats Company, the U.S. food maker owned by PepsiCo, in a legal fight that dates back 14 years. The First Collegiate Civil Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José ordered the Intellectual Property Registry on Aug. 21 to record the hold. According to the registry annotation certificate, the measure was formally entered on Aug. 25, 2026.
The hold acts as a financial safeguard. Because the final damages have not yet been set, the court froze Quaker’s Costa Rican trademarks, valued for this purpose at up to ¢20,649 million, or roughly $45.9 million, so they remain available to cover the payment if the company does not pay. The claim stems from Quaker’s unilateral termination of its business relationship with the Costa Rican company in 2010.
The affected brands include Vita Quaker, Quaker Cocoa Blasts, Quaker Honey Monster, Quaker Grancereal, Quaker Sugar Oat Flakes, Quaker Yogoavena, Quaker Avena Instantánea and Quaker Nutre tu Corazón, among others. Conaven said the embargo extends to more than 100 of the multinational’s registered trademarks in Costa Rica.
The Quaker Oats Company said its products continue to be sold and distributed in Costa Rica through its usual channels and authorized distributors. The company said it could not comment on specific aspects of the case because the matter remains before the authorities, and that it operates in compliance with local and international law and trusts in due process.
In court filings, Quaker opposed Conaven’s request to enforce the judgment, arguing that it was legally unfounded and grossly exaggerated. Conaven said in a written statement that its goal is not to take over the Quaker brands or disrupt the availability of Quaker products in Costa Rica. The company said it seeks only the payment of whatever compensation the courts ultimately set.
The dispute began in 2012, when Constenla sued the multinational after Quaker sent it a notice terminating their distribution arrangement in late 2010. Among Quaker’s stated reasons was that the distributor had also handled products from direct competitor Kellogg’s, which Quaker argued breached its duties as an exclusive distributor.
Conaven maintained that the two companies had operated under a tacit international distribution contract since 1985, with no exclusivity requirement and no limits by territory or product. The court ruled in Conaven’s favor in 2019 and ordered Quaker to pay damages. Seven years later, the final amount has yet to be determined.
Conaven filed to enforce the judgment in October 2024, requesting an embargo of up to ¢20,649 million plus the 50% surcharge allowed by law on Quaker’s assets and rights. The court granted the request in November 2024, stating that the precautionary measure does not impose a definitive obligation on the company and does not prejudge the final amount owed.
The court also noted that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court had changed the criteria for calculating compensation. As a result, the damages must be proven and quantified under Article 10 bis of Law 6209, which protects local representatives of foreign firms.
In early August 2026, the court rejected a financial guarantee Quaker offered to avoid the embargo. The court found the guarantee unsuitable because it involved a third party not part of the case, did not clearly cover a potential default by Quaker, and allowed the issuing bank to decline renewal on its own within 60 days of expiration. The court then ordered the embargo to fall on other assets of the company.
Commercial law professor Juan Ignacio Guzmán of the University of Costa Rica explained that recording an embargo with the registry does not make the creditor the owner of a trademark, nor does it necessarily require the company to stop using it. He said the measure ties the trademark rights to the outcome of the case and limits the owner’s ability to dispose of them to the creditor’s detriment.
Quaker could still transfer an embargoed brand, but the buyer would receive it with the embargo attached and with the risk of a future auction. The embargo applies only to trademarks registered in Costa Rica, not to the brands worldwide. Once the court sets the compensation, the embargoed trademarks could be appraised and auctioned if Quaker fails to pay within the required period. A buyer at that auction would acquire only the Costa Rican registrations.
For now, the case moves to the final calculation of damages, a step that will determine whether one of the most recognizable breakfast brands in the country changes hands in the local market.
