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

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article