Brazil Strengthens IP Enforcement Amid Evolving Counterfeiting and Illicit Trade Channels

Enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights in Brazil demands strategic planning, technological tools, intelligence gathering, training, and coordinated efforts among various stakeholders. This enforcement framework is underpinned by a robust legal foundation comprising the Federal Constitution, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes, and multiple administrative regulations.

In Brazil, IP violations encompass a range of acts prosecuted under both civil and criminal law. The Federal Revenue Service (Receita Federal do Brasil, RFB) is instrumental in preventing counterfeit goods from entering the country’s borders. In alignment with the TRIPS Agreement, Brazil has established customs procedures governed by the Customs Regulatory Act (Federal Decree 6,759/09), which authorizes customs authorities to detain goods suspected of infringing IP rights ex officio when reasonable indications of counterfeiting exist.

Upon detection of suspicious shipments, customs officials may seize the goods and notify the rights holder, who must verify authenticity. Confirmed infringements enable the rights holder to block the goods’ entry through administrative customs procedures or judicial measures. Judicial actions often seek injunctions compelling Customs to disclose importer identities, information protected under tax confidentiality, to facilitate subsequent legal claims for damages and requests for destruction of counterfeit products.

However, enforcement practices vary across customs agencies. Some require rights holders to initiate lawsuits to seize counterfeit goods, while others accept administrative requests. Rights holders must navigate these procedural discrepancies and tailor their enforcement strategies based on the specific customs agency involved in the importation.

To expedite enforcement, rights holders are encouraged to register trademarks with the National Directory for Combating Trademark Counterfeiting and the Anti-Piracy System maintained by the RFB. These platforms enable authorities to quickly identify brand representatives and access critical data to detect counterfeit products. Since its integration into the National Plan to Combat Piracy (2022–2025), the National Directory has garnered expanded institutional support nationwide.

Beyond border control, the RFB actively conducts enforcement operations within Brazil’s internal market, resulting in the seizure of substantial quantities of counterfeit goods. When rights holders file complaints substantiated by strong evidence of tax and IP violations, the RFB may seize infringing products. Following administrative proceedings, seized goods are destroyed, and responsible parties may face penalties for both tax crimes and IP infringements.

Rights holders can request identification of individuals involved in counterfeit distribution after fiscal procedures conclude, enabling civil claims for damages or criminal prosecutions depending on the offense’s nature and recurrence.

Trademark infringement lawsuits are adjudicated in state courts and may involve private criminal prosecutions initiated by rights holders. Conversely, most copyright infringement cases, excluding software-related violations, proceed as public criminal actions before state courts.

Criminal trademark infringement actions require preliminary evidence of unlawful conduct. This process begins with a court-authorized search and seizure, followed by expert inspection of product samples. If infringement is confirmed, the expert report is validated by a judge, and the rights holder has 30 days to file a criminal complaint.

In copyright matters, authorities may initiate proceedings ex officio or upon rights holder request, with the rights holder able to assist prosecutors.

Given that counterfeiting and piracy are criminal offenses, law enforcement agencies exercise discretion to conduct raids, particularly in known manufacturing and trade hubs. Post-raid, police experts examine seized products and issue final reports. Rights holders or prosecutors then pursue criminal charges. These raids are effective in targeting multiple or previously unidentified infringers. Additionally, equipment used in counterfeiting operations may be seized and destroyed.

Public–private cooperation plays a vital role in enforcement success. Companies investing in training, technical resources, and maintaining open communication channels with law enforcement typically achieve more effective outcomes.

Rights holders have access to diverse judicial remedies to protect their IP rights. These include lawsuits claiming damages from proven violations, preparatory lawsuits to gather evidence (such as identifying counterfeit sellers on online marketplaces), judicial authorizations for search and seizure at manufacturing sites, and preliminary inspections of computers, servers, and related devices to uncover illegal licenses.

The Civil Procedure Code facilitates urgent judicial measures, allowing courts to grant injunctions based on prima facie evidence and imminent harm. Judicial search and seizure orders effectively halt ongoing infringements and secure critical evidence for subsequent legal proceedings.