Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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 IPO must change its approach and communicate with IP owners about its attempts at clearing up the trademark register
Counsel are looking at enforceability, business needs and cost savings when filing for patents overseas
James Perkins, member at Cole Schotz in Texas, reveals how smaller tech companies can protect themselves when dealing with larger players
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The EUIPO management board must provide the Council of the EU with a performance assessment before it can remove the executive director
The European Commission confirmed that plans for a unitary SPC will be published in April alongside reforms to the SEP system
The court held that SEP implementers could be injuncted or directed to pay royalties before trial if they are deemed to be unwilling licensees
Patentees should feel cautious optimism over the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G2/21, say European patent attorneys
Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players