Brazil and the Madrid Protocol: What 2019 Accession Changed for Trade Mark Owners

For most of its history, protecting a trade mark in Brazil meant filing a separate national application with the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, the Brazilian INPI), almost always through a local representative and in Portuguese. That changed when Brazil acceded to the Madrid Protocol, the WIPO-administered system for centrally filing and managing trade mark protection across member countries, with effect in 2019. This page explains what accession actually changed, the modernisations that arrived around the same time, the practical points and limits that remain, and how the Madrid route now compares with a direct national filing. For the wider picture of brand protection in the country, see our overview of trade marks in Brazil and the step-by-step guide to registering a trade mark in Brazil.

One clarification first, because the name causes confusion. Brazil's office is the Brazilian INPI, a different body from the French INPI, which shares the same acronym. Everything on this page concerns Brazil's office.

What accession actually changed

Before 2019, a foreign brand owner who wanted protection in Brazil generally had no centralised route into the country. Paris Convention priority was available on a national filing, but there was no centralised Madrid route. The practical path was a national filing at the Brazilian INPI, prepared in Portuguese and prosecuted through a local agent. Madrid designations simply could not reach Brazil, because Brazil was not yet a member.

Accession changed the front door. Since Brazil joined the Madrid Protocol, an applicant can designate Brazil within a single international registration. That registration is based on a home (basic) application or registration in the applicant's office of origin and is filed through that office to WIPO, where it is managed centrally, rather than starting a fresh national application from scratch. Two limits of the Madrid system are worth keeping in view: the international registration depends on the basic mark for an initial period (commonly described as five years), so if the basic mark falls away in that window the designations can fall with it, and that dependency is what underlies the so-called central-attack risk. The Madrid route sits alongside, and does not replace, the long-standing direct national route. The substantive law that decides whether a mark registers in Brazil did not change because of Madrid; what changed is the procedural way protection can be requested. For how the international system works end to end, see our pillar on the Madrid Protocol.

Multi-class coverage and co-ownership

Joining Madrid gave Brazil a route to multi-class coverage, but not through a change to direct national filing. A direct application filed with the Brazilian INPI remains single-class, so a brand owner protecting a name across several classes of goods and services still files a separate national application for each. The BPTO announced plans for multi-class direct filing alongside its 2019 Madrid accession, but the launch has been postponed and it has not gone live; confirm the current position with the Brazilian INPI before assuming otherwise. Multi-class coverage of Brazil is available today only through an international registration designating Brazil under Madrid, where a single designation can carry goods and services across several classes.

Co-ownership of marks, meaning the ability for a trade mark to be held by more than one owner, did come into Brazilian practice with the accession reforms and applies to direct national filings as well as Madrid designations. The exact scope, transitional arrangements and current procedural detail should be confirmed against the Brazilian INPI's published guidance, because office practice has continued to evolve.

Practical points and limits

Designating Brazil through Madrid does not bypass Brazilian examination. The Brazilian INPI still examines every designation under Brazilian law and can issue a provisional refusal or raise an office action, just as it would on a national filing. Separately, a third party may file an opposition during the opposition period that follows publication, before substantive examination concludes. A designation that clears WIPO formalities is the start of substantive examination in Brazil, not the end of it.

That is why local representation matters even on the Madrid route. A foreign applicant, filing and prosecuting in Portuguese, must appoint a representative domiciled in Brazil to act before the office, with responses to an office action or an opposition handled under Brazilian procedure and to Brazilian deadlines. Many foreign owners who designate Brazil through Madrid rely on local counsel from the moment a refusal or opposition appears, because the response has to be argued locally and on time. Deadlines for opposition windows and office-action responses fall within ranges set by Brazilian rules and have shifted with reform, so confirm the current periods and the precise representation requirement with the Brazilian INPI or local counsel rather than relying on a fixed figure.

Timelines are the other practical caveat. Brazil has historically had long pendency for trade mark and patent matters, although the office has invested in reducing backlogs and times have been improving. Treat any specific duration cautiously and check the current position before planning around it. Official fees apply to both the Madrid designation (paid centrally to WIPO) and any national steps; confirm the current amounts with the Brazilian INPI or local counsel.

Brazil's distinctiveness goes beyond trade marks, which is useful context if you are weighing a broader IP position. On the patent side, pharmaceutical patent applications require prior consent from the health regulator ANVISA in addition to examination by the Brazilian INPI; a utility model route exists for incremental inventions, with a shorter protection term than an invention patent (confirm the current term with the Brazilian INPI); and in 2021 the Federal Supreme Court (the STF) struck down the rule that had guaranteed a minimum patent term through an automatic extension, with the court's effects modulated rather than applied uniformly, so patent-term expectations changed. Brazil has also joined the Hague System for industrial designs, which came into force for the country in 2023, though the practical contours of that route should be treated cautiously and confirmed before relying on them.

Madrid route versus a direct national filing

Neither route is automatically better; the right choice depends on how many markets you are entering and how central Brazil is to your plan. The Madrid route lets you reach Brazil from one international application, with one renewal date and centralised management across all your designated countries, which is efficient when Brazil is one of several markets. The direct national route means a Brazilian application prepared locally from the outset, which some owners prefer when Brazil is a priority market and they want local control over drafting and classification from day one. In both cases the Brazilian INPI examines under the same Brazilian law, both can meet an office action or opposition, and both ultimately benefit from local input. The comparison mirrors the trade-offs that apply in other Madrid members; for a parallel example of how registration and use interact in a different jurisdiction, see our note on registration and use in Canada.

A reasonable rule of thumb is that the more markets you are filing into at once, the more the central efficiency of Madrid tells in its favour, while the more strategically important Brazil is on its own, the more a locally driven national filing can be worth the extra effort.

IPEnvoy is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice; this is general information. Confirm the current position with the Brazilian INPI's official website and a qualified local IP professional before acting, particularly on deadlines, fees, representation requirements and the current availability of multi-class direct filing and the scope of the co-ownership reform.