AI training and the growing dispute over copyrighted content

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in everyday products and services, the use of copyrighted material to train these systems has become one of the most disputed aspects of the technology. 

 

This debate recently gained further attention after A.G. Sulzberger, publisher and chairman of The New York Times, criticized AI companies for using copyrighted content to train their systems without permission or payment. In particularly strong terms, he described the practice as a “brazen theft of intellectual property,” arguing that news articles, books, music, films, and other creative works have become a central part of the development of AI tools, while their authors and rights holders are often left out.

 

The concern is that technology companies recognize the economic value of virtually every resource involved in developing AI systems, investing heavily in computing infrastructure, energy, data storage, and specialized staff, but often treat the content used to train those systems as if it were freely available. The debate therefore also concerns how the value generated by AI should be shared with the authors and rights holders whose works contributed to its development.

 

For news organizations, there is an additional concern that AI-generated summaries and answers may reduce traffic to the original sources, allowing the systems to compete for the same audience as the publishers whose content they have used.

 

 

From a legal standpoint, the issue is broader than whether an AI system reproduces a protected work word for word in its output. It involves how copyrighted material is obtained, copied, stored, and processed during training, whether rights holders are informed or given the opportunity to object, and whether the resulting systems or outputs may reproduce, replace, or commercially compete with the original works.

 

These questions challenge traditional copyright concepts, particularly because the training process may involve large-scale use of protected material even when individual works are not immediately identifiable in the final output.

 

Brazilian copyright law does not yet specifically regulate the use of protected works in AI training, but Bill No. 2,338/2023 seeks to address some of these issues, including transparency and compensation for the commercial use of copyrighted material.

 

Until clearer rules are adopted, licensing agreements, greater transparency regarding training data, and appropriate mechanisms for compensating rights holders are likely to remain important tools for balancing technological development with copyright protection.

 

—

 

Author: Enzo Toyoda Coppola, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://veja.abril.com.br/economia/publisher-do-new-york-times-acusa-empresas-de-ia-de-roubo-descarado-de-propriedade-intelectual/

 

—

 

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

Nestlé barred from using trademark in Brazil following court decision

The Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais issued a decision prohibiting Nestlé from using the trademark “Coffee +” in Brazil due to the existence of prior trademark registrations owned by the Brazilian company Coffee Mais Indústria de Café Ltda. 

 

The Minas Gerais-based company, which owns filed applications for the marks COFFEE PLUS and COFFEE++ in 2020 (now registrations), filed a lawsuit against Nestlé seeking to enforce its exclusive rights over the mark. In its decision, the Court upheld the preliminary injunction previously granted against Nestlé, ordering the company to refrain from marketing products bearing the term “Nespresso Coffee+”, as it found that the coexistence of the marks could create a likelihood of consumer confusion.

 

In Brazil, the Industrial Property Law expressly provides that a trademark cannot be registered if it reproduces or imitates a previously registered third-party trademark. 

 

 

Given Coffee Mais Indústria de Café Ltda.’s previously acquired trademark rights, the judge granted a preliminary injunction ordering Nestlé to immediately cease use of the mark “Coffee+” in Brazil, and to withdraw products, packaging, and advertising materials bearing the mark.

 

While the proceedings are still ongoing, cases such this highlights the importance of intellectual property owners actively enforcing their rights. Rights holders should not hesitate to take action against potential infringements, even when the alleged infringer is a large multinational company.

 

Ultimately, this case underscores the interplay between the enforcement of duly registered trademark rights and the importance of comprehensive pre-adoption clearance and due diligence in brand selection. It also reflects the practical implications of operating within a first-to-file jurisdiction such as Brazil, where priority is generally governed by registration. In this context, effective trademark protection depends not only on the ability to enforce rights once secured, but also on the strategic foresight required to secure and safeguard those rights at an early stage.

 

—

 

Author: Daniela Russo and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://moonbh.com.br/capital-m/2026/06/05/cafe-mineiro-vence-nestle-disputa-marca-tjmg/

 

—

 

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

Temu, the EU fine, and how Brazil’s Courts are addressing Marketplace Liability

On May 28, 2026, the European Commission issued its largest fine ever under the Digital Services Act – DSA, €200 million against Temu, the Chinese giant e-commerce, owned by PDD Holdings.

 

Formal proceedings against Temu were opened in October 2024, after the platform was designated a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA, classification that triggers a more demanding set of rules, including rigorous, evidence-based risk assessments. 

 

The Commission concluded that Temu’s 2024 risk assessment failed to meet the standards the law requires. Regulators found baby toys with chemical substances above legal safety limits and choking hazards, chargers that failed basic safety tests, and jewelry raising further concerns. But the fine was not primarily about the products themselves, but rather about the process. The Commission determined that Temu’s assessment leaned on generic, sector-wide data instead of specific evidence about its own platform and sellers, and that it “seriously underestimated” the likelihood of European consumers encountering illegal items. 

 

The penalty surpassed the previous DSA record of €120 million imposed on X in December 2025. Temu has until August 28, 2026 to submit a corrective action plan, and the investigation remains open on other fronts, including addictive design features and recommender-system transparency. What makes this case significant is that it is the first major DSA enforcement action focused specifically on product safety in e-commerce, indicating that the regulation applies not just to disinformation, but to the physical world of goods that cross borders and reach consumers’ homes.

 

Brazil has been having its own version of this conversation. Two recent developments reshaped the picture.

 

The first came in June 2025, when the STF declared Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights) partially unconstitutional. Since 2014, that article had shielded platforms from civil liability unless they ignored a specific court order to take content down. The Court found the rule had aged badly — sensible when platforms were smaller, but no longer adequate once algorithms began amplifying harm at scale. Platforms can now be held liable after an extrajudicial notice alone, with no prior court order. And for marketplaces in particular, the STF confirmed they fall under the Consumer Defense Code (CDC), not just the Marco Civil.

 

The second development is the STJ’s framework for deciding when that CDC liability actually attaches. In REsp 1.836.349/SP, decided unanimously in June 2022, the Court established a distinction that remains central to Brazilian e-commerce litigation today. The case involved a fraud on the OLX platform: buyers were deceived into depositing money into a private account by sellers impersonating General Motors dealers. 

 

 

The Court held OLX not liable, because in that specific transaction, OLX acted as a mere classifieds site, taking no commission, managing no payment, and playing no role in the negotiation. The transaction was concluded entirely outside the platform, directly between buyer and fraudulent seller. Holding OLX responsible, the Court reasoned, would be no different from holding a newspaper liable for fraud committed through its classified ads.

 

The ruling’s lasting contribution, however, is its framework: the same platform can act as a classifieds site in some transactions and as a true intermediary in others, and the applicable liability regime depends on the role played in each case. A platform that manages payments, charges commissions, or actively organizes the transaction is part of the supply chain under the CDC and faces objective liability. One that merely hosts a listing does not, unless it fails to provide means to identify the seller, or ignores a notification to remove illegal content.

 

The parallel with the DSA is imperfect but worth drawing. Both systems are moving away from blanket immunity toward accountability tied to conduct. The methods differ: the DSA sets uniform duties for large platforms regardless of how individual sales work; Brazilian law looks at each transaction and asks what the platform actually did.

 

For a foreign company protecting intellectual property or bringing products to Brazil, this means the analysis cannot stop at identifying the platform. It must examine how the platform operates in practice. A listing on a classified-style interface points to a different defendant than a sale processed entirely within a marketplace’s payment and logistics system. When a foreign brand finds its products counterfeited or its IP infringed on a Brazilian platform, the first question is therefore not simply whether the platform knew — it is whether the platform was actively involved in bringing that transaction to completion. If it was, CDC objective liability follows; or, if it was not, the path to accountability runs through notification: documenting that the platform received notice and failed to act, which under the post-STF framework is sufficient to trigger liability even without a court order. 

 

That is why documentation matters. Every notice sent to a platform needs to be formal, traceable, and precise. And the regulatory backdrop keeps moving: the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority – ANPD, elevated to a full regulatory agency under Decree 12.622/2025 — is growing more active in shaping what platforms must do, while Congress is still under pressure from the STF to update the rules.

 

The Temu fine is ultimately a reminder that risk assessment is not a box-ticking exercise. The Commission’s core criticism was that Temu described the risks of e-commerce in the abstract rather than analyzing its own platform, its own sellers, its own algorithms. That gap between formal compliance and substantive engagement is what regulators are trained to find. 

 

For companies operating across jurisdictions, the practical message is consistent on both sides of the Atlantic: regulators are looking past formal compliance and asking whether the underlying systems are actually doing the work. Brazil and the EU are at different stages of that process, and their legal tools differ considerably — but the direction of travel is the same.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Natalia Eleutério Garcia Gazote, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Temu é multada em US$ 232 milhões pela UE por venda de brinquedos e carregadores inseguros

https://oglobo.globo.com/economia/tecnologia/noticia/2026/05/28/temu-e-multada-em-us-232-milhoes-pela-ue-por-venda-de-brinquedos-e-carregadores-inseguros.ghtml

União Europeia aperta o cerco à Temu e eleva pressão sobre gigante chinesa

https://economicnewsbrasil.com.br/2026/05/28/temu-multa-uniao-europeia-custo-regulatorio/

UE multa Temu em 200 milhões de euros por permitir venda de produtos ilegais

https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/afp/2026/05/28/ue-multa-temu-em-200-milhoes-de-euros-por-permitir-venda-de-produtos-ilegais.htm

A responsabilidade civil dos marketplaces de acordo com o STF

https://www.jota.info/opiniao-e-analise/artigos/a-responsabilidade-civil-dos-marketplaces-de-acordo-com-o-stf

STJ — REsp 1.836.349/SP, rel. Min. Marco Aurélio Bellizze, Terceira Turma, julgado em 21/06/2022, DJe 24/06/2022

https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/revista/documento/mediado/?componente=ITA&sequencial=2181939&num_registro=201901346226&data=20220624&formato=PDF

Decisão do STF sobre Marco Civil deixa vulneráveis as pequenas lojas virtuais

https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/decisao-do-stf-sobre-marco-civil-deixa-vulneraveis-as-pequenas-lojas-virtuais/

 

—

 

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

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

The INSULFILM case and the reinforcement of trademark protection in Brazil

After years of litigation, a dispute involving the INSULFILM trademark and Renault in Brazil has come to an end, with the court finding liability for the unauthorized use of the trademark.

 

The dispute arose from Renault’s advertising campaigns promoting new vehicles that included window films as a complimentary feature upon purchase. The marketing materials featured the INSULFILM trademark in a manner that led consumers to associate the products offered (window films) with those of the rights holder. In fact, however, the window films used were not INSULFILM products, and no authorization had been granted for use of the mark INSULFILM in the advertising materials.

 

In its defense, Renault argued that “Insulfilm” had become a generic term for automotive window films, and that the rights holder should therefore bear the consequences of its widespread use in the market. Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ), however, rejected this argument and upheld. the ruling that infringement had occurred.

 

 

The decision reinforces that trademark protection is not automatically lost simply because a sign becomes widely known or commonly used by the public to identify a particular product category. As long as the mark remains valid and distinctive, its unauthorized use in a commercial context may constitute infringement, particularly where it is used to promote products or attract consumers.

 

The case also highlights the economic value of trademarks as intangible assets and underscores the importance of their proper protection and strategic management. Registration is only the first step; rights holders must also actively monitor and enforce their rights in order to preserve the distinctiveness and commercial value of their marks.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Fernanda Carmagnani Rodrigues, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha, Cesar Peduti, Peduti Advogados

Fonte: STJ reforça proteção à marca Insulfilm e reacende debate sobre propriedade intelectual no Brasil – https://bmcnews.com.br/empresas-e-negocios/stj-reforca-protecao-a-marca-insulfilm-e-reacende-debate-sobre-propriedade-intelectual-no-brasil/ 

Marca Insulfilm: STJ veta uso como chamariz e impacta valuation – https://www.spacemoney.com.br/economia/stj-protege-marca-insulfilm/ 

STJ brings INSULFILM and Renault dispute to an end – https://globallegalchronicle.com/post-235856/ 

 

—

 

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

What the conflict between Brad Pitt and intimate care brand Beau D. teaches us about trademark registration

A story that made headlines recently caught the attention of anyone who follows the trademark and intellectual property space: Brad Pitt is being sued over the name of his cosmetics line, Beau Domaine. At first glance, it might seem like just another curious episode from the celebrity world. But when you look more closely at the details, you realize the situation is surprisingly familiar, and that it could happen to any business, regardless of its size or the fame of the people behind it.

 

Beau Domaine is a premium skincare brand launched in 2022 in partnership with Brad Pitt and a traditional French winemaking family. The products use ingredients derived from grapes grown at Château Miraval, a property associated with the actor, and are positioned in the luxury segment, focused on face and hand care. What most people don’t know is that the name Beau Domaine came out of a rebranding process, as the brand previously operated under a different identity and decided to change it. And that is exactly where the trouble began.

 

The company that filed the lawsuit, Beau D., founded in 2020, manufactures an intimate male care cream created in Malibu. The company claims that the similarities between the two brands – Beau Domaine x Beau D. – are too significant to ignore. The lawsuit points to overlaps in the name, visual identity, typography, digital presence, and market positioning which, according to the plaintiff, could create confusion among consumers and harm the identity the company spent years building. The damages sought exceed $75,000, and the lawsuit also requests that Brad Pitt stop using the Beau Domaine name. It is worth noting that, according to information that became public, at least three attempts at an out-of-court settlement were made before the lawsuit was filed, meaning the dispute reached the courts only after a lengthy negotiation process that ultimately failed to produce an agreement.

 

The case illustrates a problem that affects businesses of all sizes and industries: the risk of building a commercial identity without first checking whether it is available or already belongs to someone else. In the business world, a brand is far more than a name or a nice-looking logo. It represents a company’s reputation, the trust that customers place in a product or service, and the value built up over time through investment in communication, quality, and market relationships. When that identity is challenged in court, the impact goes well beyond legal fees and damages, and it can seriously undermine the brand’s standing in the market.

 

A company being forced to change its name must redesign its packaging, update corporate documents, migrate domains and social media profiles, review contracts with suppliers and distributors, and rebuild the brand recognition it took years to earn. In highly competitive sectors, such as cosmetics, that process can be enormously costly and draining, both financially and in terms of image.

 

 

The case also draws attention from another angle. In recent years, global celebrities have increasingly invested in building their own brands, turning visibility into business. Cosmetics, beverages, fashion, wellness, and luxury goods are among the most explored segments by this type of entrepreneur. That movement has significantly intensified competition for trademark registrations and market positioning. And what often gets pushed to the background during this expansion process is precisely the careful verification of whether a name, symbol, or visual identity is already protected by another company as a trademark. In Brad Pitt’s case, that due diligence apparently was not sufficient, and the result is a lawsuit that, regardless of its outcome, has already damaged the actor’s and the brand’s image and continues to generate costs that could have been avoided.

 

Every time a business is born or goes through a change of identity, there is a window of risk that is often underestimated. Registering a trademark is not red tape; it is protection. It is what ensures that no one else can use a similar mark to sell products or services in the same segment, and it provides legal grounds to act if someone tries. In Brazil, the body responsible for trademark registration is the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO).

 

Before any launch or rebranding, it is essential to conduct a prior art search, which means checking whether any trademark already registered or previously filed shares characteristics with the one intended to be used. When done thoroughly and correctly, this step can prevent exactly the kind of conflict Brad Pitt is now facing.

 

Brad Pitt’s case is a reminder that no brand is immune to this kind of problem, not even those that are born with substantial investment, global visibility, and entire teams dedicated to branding. If you are thinking about starting a business, launching a product, changing your company’s name, or expanding into new markets, specialized intellectual property guidance from the very beginning can save you time, money, and a great deal of trouble down the road.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Nathália Elizabeth Leite Vituriano da Silva e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fonte: Brad Pitt is being sued by an intimate care cream company seeking more than $75,000 in damages; here’s what you need to know

(https://oglobo.globo.com/ela/gente/noticia/2026/05/30/brad-pitt-e-processado-por-empresa-de-creme-intimo-que-pede-mais-de-75-mil-dolares-de-indenizacao-entenda.ghtml)

Brad Pitt is being sued by a manufacturer of men’s intimate care cream; here’s what you need to know

(https://www.infomoney.com.br/business/brad-pitt-e-processado-por-fabricante-de-creme-intimo-masculino-entenda/) 

Brad Pitt Becomes the Butt of Jokes After Being Sued for R$ 400 mil by an Intimate Care Cream Company (https://entretenimento.r7.com/prisma/keila-jimenez/brad-pitt-e-processado-em-r-400-mil-por-empresa-e-vira-alvo-de-brincadeiras-11062026/) 

Brad Pitt is being sued by a brand of male intimate care cream (https://revistamonet.globo.com/celebridades/noticia/2026/05/brad-pitt-e-processado-por-marca-de-creme-para-partes-intimas-masculinas.ghtml) 

 

—

 

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