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

Cookies Settings

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

Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
Gift this article