Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

12th annual awards announces winners
Sources say parties in trademark cases could tussle over the meaning of source identifier and whether surveys are fair, following the US Supreme Court ruling
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house sources say the UPC’s determinations on validity, injunctions, and damages could dictate whether companies leave their patents in or out
Business is quiet so far but the UPC has everything it needs to attract patentees, panellists at Managing IP’s IP & Innovation Summit argued yesterday, June 7
Reviewing the list of automatically qualifying degrees every three years is a great idea and should bring more tech-savvy people to the bar
A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but might turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required