Brazil: How is the Madrid Protocol faring in Brazil?
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: How is the Madrid Protocol faring in Brazil?

Sponsored by

印鑑 クリップボード

Brazil is one of the newest members of the Madrid Protocol. It has been part of the protocol since October 2 2019. An international system was long overdue and less than 10 months in it has received 5,500+ BR designations, covering 13,300+ classes.  

Accession was strategic for Brazil's plans to foster international business. However, first impressions indicate hurdles to be addressed by the Brazil Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO). Until late June, under half of the received BR designations were published, and none examined on the merits. 

Below is an overview of the main pros and cons of seeking trademark rights through Brazilian designations:


· Simplified proceedings for extending international registrations and managing renewals;

· Nice classification has been used for over 20 years in Brazil. The BPTO is expected to be less stringent when analysing international filings when it comes to wording and classification, although no international filings have been examined yet; and

· The BPTO will notify the international bureau of decisions concerning provisional refusals and decisions on nullity or revocation actions.


· Division or merger of an international registration has no effect in Brazil;

· Multi-class filings are not available yet. BR designations covering multiple classes run the risk of being split into separate applications and subject to independent examinations (to be seen);

· Registrants must declare that they are effectively engaged in the business related to the goods/services included in the BR designation;

· Brazilian IP law requires foreign registrants to appoint local representatives with powers to be served with summons, under penalty of cancellation of a mark after grant; and

· The international bureau will not be informed of specific notices regarding local proceedings, such as of the filing of oppositions and nullity actions. Registrants of BR designations therefore require local counsel to monitor said notices in order to submit defences in a timely manner.

Robert Daniel-Shores and Roberta Arantes

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
The German firms have accounted for 26% of all infringement actions, while US corporations appear interested in litigating at the forum, a report has revealed
Vincent Brault tells us how he fits kitesurfing into his lunchtime routine and why IP is no longer seen as ‘nerdy’
Gift this article