Brazil: Protection Of Trademark Regardless Of Registration In Brazil

The Special Federal Attorney´s Office, along with Brazil´s Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), recently drew up an Opinion (No 0002-2015-AGU/PGF/PFE/INPI/COOPI-LBC-1.0) on the practical application of clause XXIII of article 124 of the Industrial Property Law (local acronym LPI) No 9279/96.

Article 124, XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), bans the registration as a trademark of a product or service that reproduces or imitates, wholly or partly, a trademark that the new applicant obviously could not have failed to know about due to its own activity, the holder of which is based or domiciled in Brazilian territory or in a country with which Brazil has an agreement or is guaranteed reciprocal treatment, when the trademark is obviously aimed at presenting a product or service that is identical, similar or alike, and could cause confusion or association with that unrelated trademark.

Despite the fact that the consultation from which the Opinion originated focused on answering the question of whether the holder of a trademark based or domiciled in a signatory country of the Paris Convention could make use of or bring about the application of article 124, XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), for the protection of its priority trademark rights, as this Convention does not have a word for word correspondent provision, various other aspects and/or interpretations referring to this same provision ended up being faced, which makes the production of this present work important.

The first aspect of the Opinion we should highlight is the one which answers the question raised in the previous paragraph. According to the conclusion arrived in the Opinion, article 124, XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), does apply to the holders of trademarks in signatory countries to the Paris Convention.

The reason why we fully agree with this is that, although the Paris Convention does not have a text or norm that corresponds exactly to that of article124, clause XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), it does have provisions, principles or values that are inserted or even justify the existence of this provision in Brazilian law.

This is the case, for example, with the principle of the suppression of unfair competition, that is expressly provisioned for in the Paris Convention and which does not cease to be guidance for its very existence in Brazilian law, in article 124, clause XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI). In this sense, the Opinion did a good job on this matter by stressing the following: "The intention of art. 124, XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI) is the suppression of unfair competition". Furthermore, it added: "The suppression of unfair competition is an activity inherent to the protection of industrial property".

Another good point the Opinion raised, although it only confirmed what had already been enforced in the recent Trademark Manual of the Patent and Trademark Office - PTO (Resolution INPI/PR No 142/2014), is that the application of clause XXIII, of art. 124, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), is not, in any way, related to the established laws covering a highly renowned trademark.

This means that the holder of a trademark registered abroad, for example, in a signatory country of the Paris Convention, could challenge a trademark that is conflicting, claimed or registered by a third party in Brazil and in this case it is not necessary to demonstrate its highly-renowned reputation in one or more locations, although obviously nothing could prevent it from doing so.

As a result, it is enough for the trademark, in the name of this third person, to imitate or reproduce, wholly or partly, the international trademark, to present itself as a product that is identical, similar or like this latter, and it is certain or probable that this third party could not be unaware of its existence due to its own commercial activity.

This position, which only confirms what is already stated in the PTO´s Trademark Manual, does not lose its importance as it would go against the office´s previous position in its administrative jurisprudence and some legal precedents, that demanded the evidence of a trademark with a highly-renowned reputation that served as a base for the corresponding means of challenging it for the application of article 124, clause XXIII, of the Industrial Protection Law (LPI).

A third worthwhile issue that is also raised in the Opinion is that it does not allow the rejection or withdrawal of article 124, XXIII, of LPI, in the case of Opposition or Administrative Nullity Process (PAN), should the previous registration/model be national.

It is worth highlighting that this guidance also contrasts with the PTO´s administrative jurisprudence, which used to reject the allegation of a violation of article 124, clause XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), in cases of opposition or Administrative Nullity Process (PAN) when the applicant in these processes had already registered a trademark in Brazil. The previous understanding was that article 124, XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI) would not be applicable in these cases, bearing in mind the immediate application of clause XIX of the same legal provision of the LPI, that determines in overall terms, that trademarks should not be registered that reproduce or imitate pre-existing registered trademarks in an identical or similar market segment.

Therefore, the Opinion makes a timely ruling admitting the accumulation of violation to the clauses XIX and XXIII of article 124 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), in cases of opposition and Administrative Nullity Process (PAN), even though the applicant in these processes has a priority trademark registration in Brazil.

A final position taken from the Opinion and which deserves more critical attention from us is one that defends a more restrictive interpretation of the expression "trademark that the applicant could evidently not not know about, due to its activity".

According to the Opinion, where there is a question over how much knowledge the holder of the conflicting trademark had about the previous trademark, in a concrete case, it should be considered that it had none.

Moreover, according to the Opinion, the challenging party would have the burden of proving, including through documentation, that the third party, the applicant of the conflicting trademark, had previous knowledge of its priority trademark.

In our first reading of the opinion, we disagreed with this guidance. Our preliminary understanding was that it seemed an over exaggeration to demand documentary evidence from the priority or model trademark holder that the third party, that claims an equal or similar trademark to its, for an equal or similar market segment, to show that it had knowledge of the original trademark.

Similarly, we do not see much sense in this interpretation that is always restrictive, involving the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the third party of the previous or original trademark. We believed that in the cases where the holder of the original or previous trademark did not have to prove that the third party, that applied for the conflicting trademark, had prior knowledge of the priority trademark, as it had never maintained any kind of relation, link or contact with this corporate entity or individual person which would naturally make this proof easier, as is well stated in the cases given as examples in the Opinion.

However, we later noted that, in the Opinion, the Attorney´s Office itself spots this practical difficulty by highlighting cases in which, bearing in mind the high degree of specialization of some business activities, there is no way the applicant (third party) for a trademark could not know about the trademarks on the market of its competitors.

The Opinion also cites the example of a third party which intends depositing the trademark in a very specific area, as is the case with jet engines, where it is unlikely that it did not know about its competitors´ trademarks, which would point to the application of clause XXIII of article 124, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), in the case of reproduction or imitation of one of these trademarks. Therefore, in these cases, the Opinion indicates that it would not be necessary to prove prior knowledge of the trademark by the third party, by means of documentation (even because of the difficulty in producing it).

In these cases, the Attorney´s Office´s conclusion is that the holder of the priority trademark would only need to give an "explanation on the market segment of jet engines (number of companies that operate in the area, number of trademarks to identify the same products etc.)" to reach a conclusion on the obvious prior knowledge by the third party/applicant of its original trademark.

We believed there would be still other situations which would dispense with this requirement, defended in the Opinion and by some legal scholars in the area, that the holder of the model trademark should show, including by documentary proof, that the third party applicant for the conflicting trademark had knowledge of its previous trademark.

We now present some thoughts on trademarks that are completely fanciful or have a high degree of distinctiveness, i.e. arbitrary trademarks that convey nothing or are made up of words/signs that are not spoken or appear in the dictionary, such as Häagen-Daz (a trademark that is 100% fanciful).

In our view, in cases of reproduction or imitation by a third party of a priority trademark that is completely fanciful, like Häagen-Daz, directed at the same or similar segment of activity, leads or should lead to the inevitable conclusion that this third party had prior knowledge of the previous trademark.

We believe it is absolutely impossible or unlikely that this third party could have developed or created the very same fanciful or arbitrary trademark to identify commercial activities that are identical or analogous to the holder of the original trademark.

This explains our defense of the view that this constant restrictive position involving the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the third party of the previous or original trademark should be treated carefully or revised.

It is also worth highlighting that, in our understanding, when the lawmaker inserted the adverb "evidently" into article 124, clause XXIII, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), it was with the intention of making it clear that, if the applicant for the more recent trademark acted in the same segment as the holder of the previous identical or similar trademark, it was because it (third party), evidently, knew this latter and not because it needed to make evident (prove) this prior knowledge in the concrete case, in line with the interpretation of the Opinion in this comment. However, this is our reading of the Attorney´s Office´s interpretation which, as we have already said, brings conclusions and guidance that are extremely relevant, enlightening and positive in relation to the application of clause XXIII, of article 124, of the Industrial Property Law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.