Brazil: Trade dress enforcement is still strong 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: Trade dress enforcement is still strong in Brazil

Sponsored by

daniel-400px.png
Designer sketching drawing design Brown craft cardboard paper product eco packaging mockup box development template package branding Label . designer studio concept .

Brazil's legal system provides several options for IP owners to enforce their rights. Trade dress protection is not expressly foreseen in our law but falls within general unfair competition rules which basically forbid competitors to fraudulently divert third parties' clientele.

Preliminary injunctions (PIs) are widely available and can be granted ex parte and without the need to post a bond. PIs have been consistently granted in trade dress cases, although no trade dress registration is available in Brazil.

However, a decision from Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) at the end of 2017 changed this trend. The decision basically stated that trade dress infringement should not be decided based on the judge's subjective perspective so that an opinion from a court's technical expert was warranted.

Although such SCJ decision is not formally binding, lower courts started rejecting PIs on trade dress cases based on the argument that a court's expert opinion could not be issued at such early stages and, therefore the plaintiff's claims were not strong enough to merit a PI.

However, the SCJ decision expressly mentioned that the expert report could be waived if unnecessary based on other produced evidence. Put another way, in cases where the plaintiff provides alternative evidence which is strong enough, PIs can still be granted.

Lower courts have now adjusted their understanding and PIs are once again being granted at the State Courts of Rio and São Paulo. Plaintiffs must show evidence that the infringed trade dress is not common and that similarity between products may mislead consumers. This can be achieved by comparing available products and obtaining an independent consumer survey.

André Oliveira

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article