By Resolution, dated November 26, 1998, the Secretary General of the Andean Community declared that Article 177 of Peru's Industrial Property law does not violate Decision 344 of the Rules of the Andean Community. Article 177 provides that failure to record a license agreement is insufficient to support a cancellation action based on non-use of the trademark. The ultimate effect of this is that use of a trademark by an unrecorded licensee will inure to the benefit of the licensor.

The Secretary General reversed a prior Resolution, dated November 18, 1997, which interpreted Article 177 of Peru's Industrial Property Law, to be in violation of Decision 344 of the Rules of the Andean Community. In its 1997 Resolution, the Secretary General declared that no sanctions for failure to record a license agreement were contained in Decision 344; however, the Secretary General declared that the consequence for failure to record was that use by a licensee shall not inure to the benefit of the licensor. Under the 1998 Resolution, use of a mark by an unrecorded licensee will inure to the benefit of the licensor and the licensor can defend a cancellation action based on non-use by proving the unrecorded licensee's use of the mark.