Brazil: How is the Madrid Protocol faring in Brazil?

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: How is the Madrid Protocol faring in Brazil?

Sponsored by

daniel-400px.png
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:

Advantages

· 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.

Disadvantages

· 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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
UKIPO will remain a competitive option as long as efficient service continues
A future opt-out has not been ruled out, but practitioners warn that the UK could fall behind in the AI race
US patent lawyers say they are increasingly advising clients on China strategies as corporations seek to gain leverage in enforcement, licensing, and supply chain management
Mike Rueckheim reunites with 12 of his former Winston & Strawn colleagues as King & Spalding continues aggressive hiring streak
As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
Gift this article