Month: September 2026

On July 31, 2026, the Munich Regional Court ruled against Suno, the AI tool that lets anyone generate a full, playable song from a text prompt. The case was brought by GEMA, Germany’s collecting society for composers, songwriters and music publishers — a role similar to Ecad’s in Brazil. Suno itself is not owned by a big tech company. It was founded in 2022 by four former engineers of the fintech firm Kensho, and is backed by venture investors at a valuation of $5.4 billion.

 

The court’s 42nd Civil Chamber, led by Judge Elke Schwager, found that Suno infringed six well-known songs — including “Daddy Cool,” “Rasputin,” “Forever Young” and “Mambo No. 5” — twice over: once in the US, during training, and again in Germany, where the songs were stored inside the model and handed back to users as outputs. The court ordered Suno to stop reproducing the songs, to disclose the revenue tied to that use, and to pay damages still to be set. The ruling is not final yet. Suno says it disagrees and may appeal.

 

Memorization, not just “learning”

GEMA said Suno trained its models by pulling the six songs off YouTube, breaking a copy-protection method called the rolling cipher to do it. The court agreed. But the bigger question was “what happens next”.

 

Suno’s defense followed the standard line used by AI companies: a model does not store the songs it learns from, it only picks up patterns — melody, rhythm, structure — not the songs themselves. The Munich court did not accept that here. It found that the six songs were kept inside Suno’s model in a form the system could reproduce, a process the court called “memorization”, and that the AI’s outputs matched the originals too closely to be a coincidence.

 

That mattered a lot legally. Because the songs were kept, not just analyzed, the court said the EU’s data-mining exception for AI training did not apply. And because a simple prompt — just a title and a genre — could produce a result close enough to the original, the court also stated that US “fair use” did not help Suno either. It noted that in other US cases where AI companies won on fair use, users never got an output this close to someone else’s song.

 

This is GEMA’s second win against an AI company. In November 2025, the same court ruled that OpenAI needed a GEMA license to reproduce German song lyrics in ChatGPT — the first time a European court sided with music creators against an AI provider. That ruling is not final either: OpenAI has appealed to a higher court in Munich. The Suno case goes further: it touches GEMA’s core business, licensing the music itself, not just the words.

 

Legal commentators are already calling the Suno decision the first European ruling to clearly require a license before a company can train a music AI on protected songs. A German ruling does not bind courts in other EU countries. 

 

 

However, since the same Munich chamber has now taken this position twice, in two separate cases, other European courts are likely to look at its reasoning when similar disputes reach them.

 

The view from Brazil

Brazil has not yet seen a court ruling of this kind yet. However, it is facing the same debate, which is currently being discussed in Congress.

 

Brazilian copyright law (Law 9.610/98) protects a work no matter the format, and provides no general exception for AI training. That silence points in the same direction as the Munich ruling: using someone’s music to train an AI, without permission, is not clearly allowed just because the technology is new. What is missing is not the protection itself, but a clear rule for how it applies to AI. That rule is exactly what is being negotiated in Brazil’s proposed AI bill — known by its legislative number, Bill of Law 2338/2023 — approved by the Senate in December 2024 and still sitting in a special committee at the Chamber of Deputies.

 

Copyright has been one of the hardest points in that committee’s work. In May 2026, Ecad — Brazil’s central office for collecting and distributing music royalties — joined a group of entities from music, film, publishing and journalism in a letter asking the committee to require permission and payment before AI companies can train on protected works. This matters directly to Ecad: without that requirement in the law, there is no clear reason for an AI company to sign a license, and no royalties to pass on to composers. As of now, the bill is still waiting for the rapporteur’s opinion.

 

Even without a new law, Brazil’s collecting societies have already moved on their own. Since mid-2025, Ecad has required composers and producers to inform, when they register a song, whether AI tools were used to create it. This connects to a rule Brazil already has: a song made entirely by AI, with no human author, cannot be protected by copyright at all, since Law 9.610/98 requires a human author. So, Brazil has already answered one question. What it has not answered yet is the one Munich just decided for Germany: does training an AI on someone else’s music require a license in the first place?

 

What to watch

If Bill of Law 2338/2023 ends up requiring permission and payment for AI training, Brazil will land close to where GEMA landed in Munich. If it ends up with a broad exception for AI companies instead, rights holders will likely go to court anyway, arguing — as GEMA did — that copying is copying, regardless of how sophisticated the technology is. . Either way, this looks headed for litigation eventually. The law mostly decides who has to prove what, and how difficult it is to do so.

 

For those looking to protect their copyright in Brazil, the point is simple: no Brazilian court has ruled on this yet, but that does not mean there is no risk. Ecad and the other collecting societies are organized and already building the documentation — registrations, catalogs, declarations of AI use — needed to support a case like GEMA’s. Any company training AI on Brazilian music, text or video should expect this question to come up, whether or not B 2338/2023 passes with the exception rights holders are afraid of.

 

—

 

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

“Munich Regional Court stops Suno using GEMA-protected music”: https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/munich-regional-court-stops-suno-using-gema-protected-music/

“Suno infringed copyright in GEMA case, German court rules”: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/suno-infringed-copyright-in-gema-case-german-court-rules/

 “German court rules AI music firm Suno broke copyright rules”: https://www.reuters.com/world/german-court-rules-ai-music-firm-suno-broke-copyright-rules-2026-07-31/

 “Suno Loses Landmark AI Lawsuit to German Performing Rights Society GEMA”: https://variety.com/2026/digital/news/suno-loses-ai-lawsuit-gema-1236825010/

 “Open AI must pay GEMA licence fee for ChatGPT”: https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/open-ai-must-pay-gema-licence-fee-for-chatgpt/

 “GEMA wins court ruling on breach of copyright by AI music firm Suno”: https://www.musicweek.com/publishing/read/gema-wins-court-ruling-on-breach-of-copyright-by-ai-music-firm-suno/094644

 “GEMA vs. Suno: Munich Court Now Rules AI Music Training Illegal”: https://www.gearnews.com/gema-vs-suno-tech/

 “Ecad e entidades da música entregam nova carta à Câmara para manter proteção aos direitos autorais no PL da IA”: https://www4.ecad.org.br/noticias/ecad-e-entidades-da-musica-entregam-nova-carta-a-camara-para-manter-protecao-aos-direitos-autorais-no-pl-da-ia/

 “ECAD e a Proteção dos Direitos Autorais na Era da Inteligência Artificial”: https://sbacem.org.br/ecad-e-a-protecao-dos-direitos-autorais-na-era-da-inteligencia-artificial/

Comissão Especial sobre Inteligência Artificial (PL 2338/23), tramitação: https://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/especiais/57a-legislatura/comissao-especial-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-pl-2338-23

PL 2338/2023, tramitação completa: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/157233

 

—

 

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

Nowadays, the use of weight-loss medications containing tirzepatide as an active ingredient has become increasingly common. However, due to the high cost of these medications in Brazilian pharmacies, some people have resorted to illegally bringing such products into Brazil from Paraguay, contributing to the growing problem of tirzepatide smuggling across the border.

 

In light of the increasing number of seizures of smuggled tirzepatide-based medications in Brazil, ANVISA (the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency) signed an agreement with DINAVISA (Paraguay’s health regulatory authority) to strengthen surveillance along the border between the two countries, with the aim of reducing the smuggling of these medications. 

 

The smuggling of medications is a serious matter, as, in addition to potentially infringing previously granted intellectual property rights, it poses significant health risks to consumers, since the origin of such products and their compliance with the required quality standards cannot be guaranteed.

 

From an intellectual property perspective, Brazilian law expressly provides that third parties may not, without the patent holder’s consent, manufacture, sell, or import products that are protected by a patent or obtained directly through a patented process, as set forth in Article 42, items I and II, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law:

 

 

        Article. 42. A patent grants its holder the right to prevent third parties, without the holder’s consent, from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for such purposes:

 

        I – a product protected by a patent;

        II – a process or a product obtained directly through a patented process.

 

• 1º the patent holder shall also have the right to prevent third parties from contributing to the performance by others of the acts referred to in this Article

 

• 2º Infringement of a process patent, as referred to in item II, shall be deemed to have occurred when the possessor or owner fails to prove, pursuant to a specific court order, that the product was obtained through a manufacturing process other than the one protected by the patent.

 

Also, Article 184, item I, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law provides that:

 

Article 184. A crime against a patent for an invention or utility model is committed by anyone who:

 

I – exports, sells, displays or offers for sale, keeps in stock, conceals, or receives, for economic purposes, a product manufactured in violation of an invention or utility model patent, or obtained through a patented means or process; or”

 

As it is widely known, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY holds patent rights related to tirzepatide in Brazil. The corresponding patent application was filed with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office in January 2016 and was subsequently granted on March 6, 2018, under Patent Nº BR 11 2017 010596-9.  

 

Therefore, the company is entitled to take appropriate legal action against those involved in the smuggling and unauthorized importation of the patented medication into Brazil from other countries.

 

The agreement entered into between the Brazilian and Paraguayan regulatory authorities represents an important step toward combating the smuggling of weight-loss medications, particularly given the increasing frequency of such practices and the serious risks they may pose to public health.

 

Cases like this highlight the importance of intellectual property owners actively enforcing their rights, as well as the essential role of health regulatory authorities in implementing effective measures to prevent the irregular circulation of medicines and other health-related products.

 

—

 

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

Source: https://g1.globo.com/saude/noticia/2026/08/21/anvisa-assina-acordo-com-paraguai-em-meio-a-alta-no-contrabando-de-canetas-emagrecedoras.ghtml

 

—

 

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

A recent decision by a São Paulo court provides further guidance on the scope of trade dress protection under Brazilian law. The dispute involved the packaging of generic drugs marketed by Eurofarma Laboratórios S.A. (“Eurofarma”) and MedQuímica Indústria Farmacêutica S.A. (“Medquímica”) and arose after MedQuímica redesigned the visual identity of its packaging in 2023.

 

According to Eurofarma, the new presentation of MedQuímica’s products became too similar to its trade dress, characterized, among other elements, by a green gradient, an orbital globe icon and the position of the word mark in the package. Eurofarma argued that these similarities could create a risk of consumer confusion or undue association and sought to prevent the use of the new visual identity of Medquímica’s products, as well as damages.

 

During the proceedings, a court-appointed expert recognized that Eurofarma has distinctive and protectable trade dress in its generic drug product line. However, the expert found relevant differences between the trade dresses that characterize each each company visual identity. The court-expert’s analysis considered not only the graphic elements of the packaging, but also color differences identified through instrumental measurements and simulations of how the products would appear at points of sale.

 

 

Based on the expert evidence, the court found no infringement of Eurofarma’s trade dress or trademarks, nor any act of unfair competition. The decision also noted that the use of similar colors by competing companies is not, in itself, sufficient to establish trade dress infringement. Rather, it is necessary to consider whether the colors and other visual elements are arranged or combined in a distinctive manner. Eurofarma’s claims were therefore dismissed.

 

The case provides a relevant example of how Brazilian courts approach the protection of trade dress. Although trade dress is not subject to an independent registration system in Brazil, distinctive product presentations may be protected under unfair competition rules when their imitation is likely to cause confusion or undue association. By assessing the overall visual identity of the products and relying on technical evidence to distinguish protectable features from elements that cannot be exclusively appropriated, the decision illustrates the mechanisms available under Brazilian law to protect intellectual property assets while preserving legitimate competition.

 

—

 

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

Fontes: Uso de mesma cor, por si, não configura cópia de embalagem da concorrente – https://conjur.com.br/2026-ago-13/juiz-isenta-farmaceutica-da-acusacao-de-copiar-embalagem-de-generico/ 

Inteiro teor da Sentença do processo nº 1011377-05.2024.8.26.0100 – Site TJSP

 

—

 

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.