Brazil: INPI’s decisions can be challenged at Brazilian courts

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Brazil: INPI’s decisions can be challenged at Brazilian courts

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) does not have to be the final stop. Going to court has become, more than ever, a viable option to challenge the INPI's decisions.

Brazil has notoriously had a problem with delayed decisions from the INPI. At its worst, the so called "backlog" of work left trademark applications pending examination for four years, plus another eight years if an appeal was filed.

With a view to joining the Madrid Protocol (which came into effect in Brazil on October 2,2019), the INPI reorganised itself, hired more examiners and was able to become more efficient – at least in terms of reducing the timeframes for its decisions.

However, an issue that is yet to be fully addressed is the quality of the decisions. Decisions can be short, and many times inconsistent. In Brazil, decisions issued by a public office can be subject to review by a Federal Court.

The Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro has had judges specialised in IP since 2001. Over the years, they have ruled on thousands of cases involving the INPI. The judges are not only experienced, but free to review the decision in full, based on the claims of the plaintiff.

The numbers independently gathered by Daniel Law show that roughly 500 cases challenging decisions from the trademark office are filed yearly. More impressively, the overall average of the last four years of decisions disclose that the IP specialised judges have overruled the INPI's decisions in just under 50% of the cases.

There are of course many different circumstances relating to the outcome of these lawsuits. A frivolous claim can always be quickly dismissed by these experienced judges. While the INPI is the authority when it comes to granting or refusing industrial property rights such as trademarks, it does not necessarily have the final say.

robert-daniel-shores.jpg

Robert Daniel-Shores


Daniel LawAv. República do Chile, 230, 3rd FloorCentro, Rio de Janeiro 20031-170, BrazilTel: +55 21 2102 4212www.daniel-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Law firms are integrating AI to remain competitive, and some are noticing an impact on traditional training and billing models
Gift this article