Month: February 2026

Bill No. 2338/2023 is soon expected to be enacted, regulating Artificial Intelligence in Brazil. In this scenario, understanding the development of artificial intelligence regulation in Brazil may offer great opportunities.

 

The global regulation of artificial intelligence faces significant challenges, particularly concerning data usage and copyright infringement. As AI systems increasingly rely on massive amounts of data for training, issues arise around data privacy, consent, and the ethical sourcing of information. Copyright violations also have become a critical aspect of this technology, with generative AI models often trained on copyrighted materials without permission, leading to lawsuits and debates over fair use. As a matter of fact, the traditional blurred lines that limit fair use and violations have become even more difficult to identify.

 

Countries worldwide are facing difficulties with balancing innovation and protection, as seen in the European Union’s AI Act, which focuses more on the risks brought by AI, and U.S. approach, which is certainly more liberal. These challenges highlight the tension between technological advancement and intellectual property rights, demonstrating the urgency for international standards to address cross-border data flows and liability for AI-generated content.

 

In Brazil, current issues with AI usage revolve around copyright infringement and data privacy, intensified by the rapid adoption of generative tools. A notable recent case is the lawsuit No. 1107237-96.2025.8.26.0100 filed by Folha de São Paulo, a major Brazilian newspaper, against OpenAI, in August 2025. The newspaper claims that OpenAI’s models were trained on its copyrighted articles without authorization, resulting in AI-generated content that replicates journalistic work. This case demonstrates the growing concern over AI’s impact on creative industries, where platforms like ChatGPT are accused of exploiting Brazilian content for commercial gain. Additionally, there are broader worries about AI’s role in misinformation and bias, particularly in a diverse society like Brazil, where data imbalances could perpetuate inequalities.

 

Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (Brazilian GDPR), enacted in 2020, marked an initial step in regulating aspects crucial to AI development, specifically the handling of personal data. This law emphasizes data minimization, consent, and transparency, which are essential for training AI algorithms. Under Brazilian GDPR, strongly inspired in the European model for data protection, companies must ensure lawful data processing, impacting AI developers who rely on large datasets. While not AI-specific, GDPR brought the initial awareness to tech firms about the necessity of adapting their practices, creating a foundation for ethical AI use and influencing how Brazilian entities approach data-driven technologies.

 

 

The debate on AI regulation has grown more complex with discussions on platform liability, even though these are not directly tied to AI. Issues surrounding algorithmic responsibility in illegal acts and programming accountability have emerged, particularly in cases involving social media moderation and content recommendation systems. For instance, controversies over platforms like Meta and their role in spreading harmful content have raised questions about whether algorithms should be held accountable for facilitating illicit activities, such as hate speech or misinformation. This broader discourse on digital responsibility informs AI regulation, as it highlights the need to address how AI systems contribute to societal harms and who bears the blame.

 

However, Brazil’s proposed AI bill (Bill No. 2338/2023), which attempts to create a thorough framework for AI governance, is a significant advancement in AI regulation in that country. 

 

Bill No. 2338/2023 imposes requirements like accountability, transparency, and human oversight while classifying AI systems based on risk levels. In contrast to the European viewpoint, the Bill only addresses unacceptable and high risk, which would give rise to the prohibition and restriction of specific uses of IA. Additionally, it deals with data governance, guarantees that AI training complies with privacy regulations such as the Brazilian GDPR, and encourages ethical AI development by requiring impact assessments for risks associated with AI use.

 

Additionally, Bill No. 2338/2023 offers incentives for research and innovation as well as provisions for public involvement in AI decision-making. It creates a national AI authority to monitor adherence, impose sanctions, and promote collaboration with AI agents. The bill mandates safeguards against discriminatory outcomes and promotes inclusive AI design. It also addresses emerging issues such as the use of AI in job recruitment or personal rankings.

 

The Brazilian Senate passed the bill in December 2024, and it is currently awaiting Chamber of Deputies approval, which is anticipated to occur in February 2026. If implemented, it is anticipated to have a substantial impact on Brazil’s use of AI by creating a more regulated environment that strikes a balance between protection and innovation. This could position Brazil as a leader in Latin American AI governance and possibly influence regional standards while attracting foreign investment in AI and reducing the risks of copyright infringement and data.

 

In conclusion, Brazil’s developing AI regulatory environment, which builds on Brazilian GDPR and advances through Bill No. 2338/2023, reflects a proactive approach to global challenges. As the bill moves forward, it promises to improve moral AI practices, safeguard intellectual property, and guarantee responsible data use, providing important guidance for global policymakers navigating the challenges of AI regulation.

 

—

 

Author: Mariana de Araújo M. Lima Di Pietro, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados 

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The American actor Matthew McConaughey, famous for films such as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and Interstellar, has implemented an innovative legal approach to protect his image and voice against unauthorized use by artificial intelligence systems. In January 2026, the artist registered several distinctive signs with the USPTO, such as his voice, audiovisual excerpts, and the famous phrase “Alright, alright, alright,” in order to prevent unauthorized artificial reproductions.

 

The action comes amid growing concern about the progress of generative AI technologies, which have the ability to produce hyper-realistic content that mimics the faces, voices, and expressions of real individuals. Resources of this type, generally linked to so-called deepfakes, have been used without permission for commercial, advertising, and even disinformation purposes, compromising the personality rights of public and private individuals.

 

 

In Brazil, personality rights, established in Article 5, items V, X, and XXVIII, of the Federal Constitution, and Articles 11 to 21 of the Civil Code guarantee the protection of image, voice, and personal identity against use by artificial intelligence. These provisions guarantee the protection of image, honor, and voice, allowing the owner to prevent unauthorized uses or uses that exceed the originally consented purpose, even in digital environments. In addition, the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) can be invoked when the image or voice is considered personal data, especially in situations involving the training of AI systems or the creation of synthetic content, requiring a legal basis and a legitimate purpose for such use.

 

Furthermore, even though Brazilian law does not allow the registration of images or voices as trademarks in the strict sense, it is possible to use the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/96) to protect distinctive signs linked to artistic or professional identity, such as names, pseudonyms, signatures, and expressions notoriously associated with the person, provided that they are used as identifiers of products or services. 

 

This protection can be integrated with copyright and unfair competition laws, creating a legal framework capable of preventing the inappropriate use of identities by AI systems. As in the United States, there is a trend in Brazil to create a unified framework that combines personality rights, data protection, and intellectual property tools to deal with problems arising from the artificial replication of human images and voices.

 

—

 

Author: Isabela Nicolella Vendramelli, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Source: 

https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/matthew-mcconaughey-trademarks-his-iconic-dialogue-to-stop-ai-misuse-10762044

https://cbn.globo.com/cultura/noticia/2026/01/16/astro-de-como-perder-um-homem-em-10-dias-e-interestelar-faz-patente-para-proteger-sua-imagem-da-ia.ghtml 

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Brazilian authorities have launched a new phase of Operation 404, a nationwide initiative aimed at combating online piracy and protecting intellectual property rights in the digital environment.

 

As a result of this coordinated action, 535 illegal websites and one unauthorized streaming application were taken down, in addition to four preventive detentions and three arrests made in flagrante across different regions of Brazil.

 

The operation relied strong international cooperation, uniting law enforcement authorities and intellectual property organizations from Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States, Peru, South Korea, Europe, and Japan, reinforcing Brazil’s commitment to cross-border enforcement against digital piracy.

 

 

The fight against online infringement has significantly intensified in recent years. Brazilian authorities have consistently strengthened enforcement measures to ensure the effective protection of intellectual property rights, particularly in the digital and audiovisual sectors. 

 

Brazilian legislation provides a robust legal framework to address these violations. The Copyright Law (Law No. 9,610/1998) and the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996) expressly prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and exploitation of protected works. In addition, the Brazilian Penal Code criminalizes copyright infringement, piracy-related activities, acts of unfair competition, and the facilitation of intellectual property crimes.

 

The task force demonstrates that Brazil is actively and effectively enforcing IP rights, safeguarding rights holders whose assets are unlawfully exploited and mitigating the economic and reputational damage caused by piracy.

 

Such initiatives are essential to fostering a safer business environment, and professionals in the intellectual property field play a key role in supporting and strengthening these enforcement actions.

 

—

 

Authors: Daniela Russo, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://www.gov.br/mj/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/forca-tarefa-internacional-contra-pirataria-tira-do-ar-535-sites-e-um-aplicativo-de-streaming

 

—

 

“For strategic guidance on anti-piracy enforcement in Brazil, contact the authors or our Managing Partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

When we think of a trademark, we often associate it with a name, logo, or label. In practice, however, the value of a mark extends far beyond its visual or nominative elements.

 

A trademark can become a symbol of identity, belonging, and culture. In consumer societies, it may also reflect status, lifestyle, and shared values. At its core, a trademark is an identifying sign: through its name, visual identity, design language, and narrative, consumers recognize and distinguish products and services. A well-developed brand  conveys consistency and trust, signaling what consumers can expect: quality, authenticity, values or a particular symbolic meaning.

 

For this reason, a strong trademark does not depend solely on originality naming. This becomes evident when we look at marks formed by common or suggestive terms that have achieved high distinctiveness in the marketplace, such as Netflix, Natura, Patagonia, among others. Brazilian trademark law itself, as applied by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, recognizes that evocative and suggestive marks may be registrable, provided they are capable of identifying origin and distinguishing goods or services.

 

But what happens when a trademark goes even further?

 

Powerful trademarks transcend the functional dimension of a product and begin to represent lifestyles, shared experiences, and memories. They evolve into cultural icons. In some cases, the trademark becomes so  dominant that it replaces the generic name of the product in everyday language, such as: Cotonetes, Maizena, Bombril, Durex, Gillette, Band-Aid, Super Bonder, Post-it, Jacuzzi and many others.

 

Furthermore, well-structured marks have the power to unite people. Much like sports teams, which go beyond their institutional role to foster loyalty and community among fans, brands can cross geographic and cultural boundaries, uniting people through shared identity, values, and/or lifestyle. This is what gives trademarks an intangible value that far exceeds their role as mere commercial assets.

 

 

A clear example of this phenomenon is the iconic New York Yankees cap.

 

Baseball is not a mainstream sport in Brazil. Yet, as reported by international and Brazilian media, Yankees caps have become a fashion trend in the country, even among consumers who are unaware of the product’s origin: the New York Yankees, a Major League Baseball (MLB) team in the United States. In this context, the cap is no longer perceived primarily as sports merchandise.

 

This reflects how the New Era brand, which produces official caps for baseball, basketball, and American football teams, has moved beyond the sports industry and successfully positioned its products within urban culture and lifestyle fashion worldwide.

 

Cases like this illustrate a key principle of modern branding: quality alone is no longer enough. To remain relevant, products must connect emotionally with consumers and integrate into their identity in order to  become symbols.

 

Because of this unique ability to generate economic, cultural, and emotional value, trademarks require proper legal guidance and protection. Trademark registration is not merely a formal or bureaucratic step, it is a strategic measure to safeguard the exclusivity of a brand’s intangible assets and preserve the symbolic capital built over time.

 

In a globalized economy, protecting trademarks means protecting culture, reputation, and long-term value.

 

—

 

Authors: Nicole Latorraca, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Brasileiros compram boné americano sem saber do que se trata, diz New York Times + https://valor.globo.com/eu-e/noticia/2023/03/29/brasileiros-compram-bone-americano-sem-saber-do-que-se-trata-diz-new-york-times.ghtml;  

New Era: Muito Além dos Bonés + https://www.meninashoes.com.br/blog/new-era-muito-alem-dos-bones?srsltid=AfmBOorrQlTlQT2ixcRQli5-DKn0D_-Ociv4N746ZBLDKZlFqvktatTQ; https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodgers/comments/1nhucux/what_makes_the_yankees_and_dodgers_global_mlb/?tl=pt-br; https://www.estadao.com.br/lifestyle/bone-dos-yankees-viraliza-no-brasil/?srsltid=AfmBOop3T2vu_7dU8DhepLTYOE70_uszKRWre6ugtSsdapz4CdKGGNyr 

 

—

 

“For strategic trademark guidance in Brazil, contact the author or our managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

Trade dress, understood as the overall look and feel of a product or its packaging, encompassing elements like size, shape, color, texture, graphics, and even sales technique, plays a crucial role in distinguishing goods and services in the marketplace. In Brazil, unlike some other jurisdictions, the protection of trade dress does not stem from a specific statutory provision explicitly defining and protecting it as a distinct intellectual property right. Instead, its safeguarding is primarily a result of jurisprudential construction, where courts consistently interpret trade dress infringement as a form of unfair competition, falling under the broad principles of illicit acts provided for in the Industrial Property Law. This judicial approach recognizes the consumer’s right not to be misled and the legitimate entrepreneur’s right to protect their distinctive commercial identity.

 

Given its protection under the umbrella of unfair competition, actions for trade dress infringement in Brazil typically do not necessitate prior registration of the specific visual set of visual elements with any intellectual property office. This means a company does not need to have formally registered its trade dress to seek redress against imitators. However, while not a prerequisite, the existence of registered intellectual property rights such as trademarks, industrial designs, or copyrights for specific elements within the trade dress can significantly bolster a case. Such registrations can provide stronger, more easily verifiable grounds for infringement, making the overall assessment of the unlawful conduct more straightforward for the courts.

 

The evidentiary process for proving trade dress infringement in Brazil often hinges on a specialized technical assessment known as a semi-optic survey. This expert analysis typically unfolds in two main stages. Initially, the survey evaluates the distinctiveness of the original trade dress by comparing it against similar products already existing in the market. The goal here is to establish that the trade dress in question possesses sufficient originality and capability to differentiate the product from its competitors. In the second stage, the expert then performs a direct comparison between the original, distinctive trade dress and that of the alleged infringer, meticulously identifying similarities that could lead to consumer confusion or undue association.

 

Despite the robustness of the semi-optic survey, obtaining preliminary injunctions to halt the use of infringing trade dress can be a challenging endeavor in Brazil. This difficulty arises precisely because of the inherent need for this specialized expert analysis, which is typically conducted during the discovery phase of a lawsuit. Brazilian judges often exhibit skepticism towards unilaterally produced evidence, such as private pre-litigation infringement analyses commissioned by the plaintiff. While these preliminary analyses are essential for a plaintiff to gauge their likelihood of success before committing significant resources to a full-blown judicial action, they rarely suffice on their own to convince a judge to grant an urgent, temporary prohibition without the benefit of an impartial court-appointed expert.

 

 

To mitigate this challenge and increase the prospects of securing a preliminary injunction, a particularly effective strategic measure is the initiation of an “action for preliminary evidence production”. This procedural mechanism allows the plaintiff to request the court to appoint an expert and conduct the semi-optic survey at a very early stage of the dispute, even before the main lawsuit for infringement is formally filed. By doing so, the crucial technical evidence is generated under judicial supervision and with the participation of both parties (or at least their notification), lending it significant credibility.

 

While initiating an action for preliminary evidence production inevitably means anticipating the main costs associated with the expert survey, this approach often proves to be more expeditious than awaiting the completion of the entire judicial process for the main infringement action to reach its evidentiary phase. Critically, an expert report confirming infringement, ensuring both parties have a chance to challenge the evidence, provides a powerful and reliable basis for a subsequent request for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit, offering a much higher degree of certainty for its deferral by the court.

 

It is also important to acknowledge that the concept of trade dress, despite its growing recognition, is still relatively new in the landscape of intellectual property protection in Brazil when compared to more established rights like trademarks and patents. Consequently, there remains considerable scope for jurisprudential development and refinement, particularly concerning the specific criteria and nuances involved in assessing distinctiveness and potential for confusion. This ongoing evolution means that legal strategies in trade dress cases must remain flexible and adaptable to emerging judicial interpretations.

 

In conclusion, while the protection of trade dress in Brazil relies on a jurisprudential interpretation of unfair competition rather than specific statutory provisions, it nonetheless offers a vital tool for safeguarding a business’s distinctive commercial identity. Navigating the evidentiary requirements, particularly the need for a semi-optic survey, presents challenges for obtaining swift preliminary injunctions. However, strategic use of procedural tools like the action for preliminary evidence production can significantly enhance a plaintiff’s ability to secure timely judicial intervention, effectively combating imitative practices and preserving market distinctiveness, even as the legal framework continues to mature.

 

—

 

Author: Mariana de Araújo M. Lima Di Pietro, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados 

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”