Brazil: INPI’s decisions can be challenged at Brazilian courts
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
Gift this article