Brazil: INPI’s decisions can be challenged at Brazilian courts

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: INPI’s decisions can be challenged at Brazilian courts

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) does not have to be the final stop. Going to court has become, more than ever, a viable option to challenge the INPI's decisions.

Brazil has notoriously had a problem with delayed decisions from the INPI. At its worst, the so called "backlog" of work left trademark applications pending examination for four years, plus another eight years if an appeal was filed.

With a view to joining the Madrid Protocol (which came into effect in Brazil on October 2,2019), the INPI reorganised itself, hired more examiners and was able to become more efficient – at least in terms of reducing the timeframes for its decisions.

However, an issue that is yet to be fully addressed is the quality of the decisions. Decisions can be short, and many times inconsistent. In Brazil, decisions issued by a public office can be subject to review by a Federal Court.

The Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro has had judges specialised in IP since 2001. Over the years, they have ruled on thousands of cases involving the INPI. The judges are not only experienced, but free to review the decision in full, based on the claims of the plaintiff.

The numbers independently gathered by Daniel Law show that roughly 500 cases challenging decisions from the trademark office are filed yearly. More impressively, the overall average of the last four years of decisions disclose that the IP specialised judges have overruled the INPI's decisions in just under 50% of the cases.

There are of course many different circumstances relating to the outcome of these lawsuits. A frivolous claim can always be quickly dismissed by these experienced judges. While the INPI is the authority when it comes to granting or refusing industrial property rights such as trademarks, it does not necessarily have the final say.

robert-daniel-shores.jpg

Robert Daniel-Shores


Daniel LawAv. República do Chile, 230, 3rd FloorCentro, Rio de Janeiro 20031-170, BrazilTel: +55 21 2102 4212www.daniel-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article