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 2026

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

UPC cases are (very) gradually becoming more distributed across other local divisions outside Germany, which can only be good news for the pan-European forum
Clarification concerning jurisdictional reach and latest stats released by the court were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
Although unanimous decision by the top court clarifies several aspects of the honest concurrent use defence, practitioners say ambiguities remain
Tristan Sherliker says he hopes to solve an access to justice issue by making the automated court bundle tool free to use
The team, comprising two partners and one senior consultant, plans to offer “highly differentiated” services to clients
HGF’s new ownership model frees it from the hiring constraints of traditional partnerships, its CEO told Managing IP
New timeline for 2026 aims to provide clearer guidance to firms and practitioners on the full jurisdictional market view
Attorneys contemplate whether clients using AI for legal guidance is beneficial to attorney-client relationships or more of a nuisance
Richard de Bodo, who had a lengthy career at international firms, shares how he will address client needs and praises the unique offerings of smaller firms
An Australian top court decision clarifying honest concurrent use and wins by publishers against AI platforms were also among the top talking points
Gift this article