Author: pedrobar

The artist Anitta has filed an opposition with the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (BPTO) to prevent the pharmaceutical company Farmoquímica from using the name “Anitta” for cosmetic products. The dispute centres on the company’s request to extend the protection of an existing trademark – “Annita”, with a different spelling (two “N”s and one “T”) – used for an anthelmintic that has been marketed for almost two decades.

 

In 2023, Farmoquímica filed an application with the BPTO to extend the use of the trademark to cosmetics. However, unlike the original spelling registered for the medication (‘Annita’), the application used the spelling ‘Anitta’, identical to the singer’s stage name, which she had registered since 2016.

 

In response to the application, the artist’s legal representatives argued that the coexistence of the marks in the same market segment was not feasible, especially given the phonetic and visual similarity of the names. According to the opposition, the pharmaceutical company’s use of the mark could mislead consumers into believing that the cosmetic products were associated with the artist’s brand.

 

The notice of opposition states:

There is no doubt that the reproduction of the term ‘ANITTA’, with exactly the same spelling and pronunciation as the opponent’s mark, may cause confusion among consumers and make the coexistence of such marks impossible.

 

In an official statement, the singer confirmed her legal team’s action to block the pharmaceutical company’s trademark application and also revealed that she has also filed her own application to register the ‘Anitta’ trademark for use in the cosmetics sector, reinforcing her claim to exclusivity in this specific market.

 

 

At the time of writing, Farmoquímica had not made any public statements on the matter.

 

This dispute involves the application of classic principles of trademark law, in particular those relating to priority of registration, likelihood of confusion and unfair association between marks. Under Brazilian Law No. 9,279/96 (Industrial Property Law), the registration of a trademark that reproduces or imitates another already registered or widely recognised trademark is prohibited if there is a risk of confusion or unfair association on the part of consumers.

 

This case highlights the importance of proactive and strategic trademark protection, particularly for public figures and companies operating in markets with strong identity appeal. 

 

For this reason, it is always advisable to maintain a well-managed trademark portfolio under the care of a specialised legal team, such as Peduti Advogados.

 

—

 

Author: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Anitta contesta pedido de registro do seu nome por farmacêutica para produtos de beleza + https://g1.globo.com/saude/noticia/2025/04/29/anitta-disputa-para-barrar-uso-do-nome.ghtml

 

—

 

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

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

The Brazilian government has taken another significant step toward strengthening its intellectual property environment. On March 24, 2024, Brazil’s acting President and Minister of Development, Industry, Trade and Services (MDIC), Geraldo Alckmin, met with senior officials from the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) in Rio de Janeiro to discuss strategies aimed at fostering the country’s industrial property system. 

 

Among the key goals presented by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office’s President, Mr. Júlio César Moreira, is the substantial reduction of processing times. By 2026, the examination time of a patent application is expected to decrease from the current four years to just two. In the trademark field, the period for registration is set to drop from 18 months to only one month.

 

Our understanding, however, is that this one-month timeframe for trademark examination will in fact begin only after 90-days from the publication of the application, after opposition period has lapsed. Once a trademark application is published, there is a 60-day window during which third parties may file oppositions and a subsequent 30-day period for the applicant to present a response to the opposition. Therefore, the one-month analysis period can only reasonably commence after the conclusion of said opposition period. Even so, it will be an impressive and important accomplishment.

 

Achieving these ambitious targets will depend on continued technological modernization, hiring new personnel, and securing the necessary budget to implement the changes.

 

 

Planned Deliverables for 2025

 

To achieve such improvement, gaining efficiency and reducing examination timelines, the BPTO has announced several initiatives to be implemented:

 

• The use of Artificial Intelligence to assist in search and examination tasks.

• The launching of the “User Portal,” with functionalities progressively introduced for patents, improving the experience for applicants.
• Optimization of the trademark opposition form, making the process more streamlined and user-friendly.
• A pilot project called “Direct Contact with the User,” aimed at simplifying administrative procedures and speeding up cases’ processing.
• Legislative developments, particularly Bill No. 2210/2022, which proposes the possibility of early examination of national patent applications and changes to the trademark opposition system.
• Introduction of a new fee schedule.

 

These actions reflect the Brazilian government’s commitment to creating a faster, more efficient, and more transparent intellectual property system. By improving the infrastructure and regulatory framework, Brazil continues to move toward greater competitiveness, legal certainty, and attractiveness for innovation and investment.

 

—

 

Author: Theo Thadeu Vita Calegari, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/central-de-conteudo/noticias/inpi-e-mdic-avancam-para-agilizar-patentes-e-marcas-no-brasil 

 

—

 

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

The 3rd Panel of the STJ upheld the decision of the TRF-2, which rejected BMW’s request to annul DASA’s trademark. The Court ruled that the logos of both companies do not generate a risk of consumer confusion and can coexist based on the principle of specialty. Justice Nancy Andrighi, rapporteur of the case, voted to reject BMW’s appeal, highlighting the impossibility of re-examining evidence in the higher court. The TRF-2 had already concluded that there was not enough similarity between the visual signs of the brands and that BMW did not prove the existence of unfair competition.

 

Initially, BMW argued that the Distribuidora Automotiva would be using three inclined stripes in the colors light blue, dark blue and red, striking characteristics of BMW’s visual identity. The company maintained that such use would create an undue association between the companies and could confuse consumers, diverting customers and affecting their reputation. To support its thesis, BMW invoked provisions of the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996), which protect trademarks against reproduction, imitation or improper associations that may mislead the public.

 

DASA countered the allegations, arguing that its visual identity had its own characteristics and was not a copy or imitation of BMW’s visual elements. The company claimed that the use of inclined stripes in the automotive sector was common and widely employed by several brands, not being a distinctive element exclusive to BMW. It also argued that the registrations granted by the BPTO followed technical and legal criteria that guaranteed their originality, and that there was no confusion among consumers.

 

The BPTO defended the validity of the registrations granted to Distribuidora Automotiva, arguing that the technical analysis carried out did not identify improper imitation or possibility of confusion between the visual signs of the trademarks in question. It emphasized that similar graphic elements could coexist as long as they were accompanied by distinctive features, as permitted by law.

 

In judging the case, the trial judge understood that BMW’s arguments were not sufficient to demonstrate that the trademarks registered by DASA constituted an improper reproduction or imitation of its distinctive signs. The sentence emphasized that BMW’s visual identity, although widely recognized in the market, does not have exclusivity over the use of inclined stripes in certain colors, especially when there are structural differences in the way the brands are presented.

 

 

 

The judge based his decision on the principles of specialty and distinctiveness of trademarks. According to the ruling, the trademark of Distribuidora Automotiva contained its own word elements and other graphic aspects that substantially differentiated it from BMW’s visual identity. In addition, it considered that the coexistence of the brands in the market for a long period without records of effective confusion on the part of consumers reinforced the thesis that there was no risk of undue association between the companies.

 

Another point addressed in the decision was the application of the distance theory, a principle widely accepted in trademark law. The judge pointed out that, although the trademarks could have certain graphic elements in common, the way they were used in the market, combined with other distinctive characteristics, ruled out the possibility of confusion. It was also pointed out that, in matters of industrial property, the exclusive right granted to the owner of a trademark does not extend to generic elements or widely used in the sector.

 

In view of this scenario, the judgment dismissed BMW’s claims, maintaining the validity of the Distribuidora Automotiva registrations and removing any obligation of indemnification or abstention from using the questioned visual identity.

 

Dissatisfied, BMW filed an appeal to the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region, reiterating its arguments about the alleged imitation of its visual identity and reinforcing the need to annul the registrations granted by the BPTO. However, the Court upheld the decision of the first instance, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to characterize the infringement of BMW’s trademark rights. The ruling reinforced the understanding that there was no reproduction or imitation capable of causing confusion in the consuming public, highlighting that the visual identity used by Distribuidora Automotiva did not compromise the distinctiveness of the BMW brand.

 

In addition, the Court understood that the Federal Court was not competent to judge the claim for compensation made by BMW, considering that the issue should be considered by the common civil sphere. Thus, in addition to having its appeal denied, BMW was ordered to pay attorney’s fees.

 

Finally, the decision was submitted to the Superior Court of Justice, which fully upheld the understanding of the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region, confirming the dismissal of BMW’s requests. Thus, the case was closed with the maintenance of DASA’s trademarks and the rejection of BMW’s allegations, consolidating the understanding that the visual identity used by the defendant company did not violate the trademark rights of the German manufacturer.

 

—

 

Author: Carlos Roberto Parra e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/425850/stj-nega-pedido-da-bmw-e-mantem-validade-de-logo-da-dasa

 

—

 

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

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

In general, “dupes” are products that are similar to others already on the market, because they replicate distinctive features of original products. However, their proposal to offer more accessible alternatives to high-value items can raise important legal issues relating to the protection of intellectual property.

 

Although the popularity of “dupes” may give the impression that the sale of these cheaper versions is fully permitted in Brazil, the reality is that they can infringe trademark rights, protected design elements (industrial design) and the visual presentation of products, which falls under trade dress protection. Trade dress covers the whole image of a product or service, including packaging, design, colors, shapes and layout, and is essential for identifying a brand in the market.

 

In this context, the major risk for companies that produce and market “dupes” is the possibility of their activities being considered unfair competition, given that these companies earn profits by parasitically exploring the original brand’s investments, without adding their own value to the market. Unfair competition can result in serious financial losses, including the obligation to compensate the injured company based on the number of sales unduly obtained or the estimated turnover that the original brand would have achieved had there been no infringement. In addition, the infringing company may be sentenced to pay moral damages to the damaged brand.

 

For unfair competition to be characterized, the existence of a possibility of confusion on the part of the consumer is enough. In this situation, it is legitimate for brands that invest significantly in design and exclusivity to seek protection for their intellectual property, especially given the growing popularity of “dupes” and the influence of digital content creators in disseminating these products.

 

In this regard, it is important for entrepreneurs to take extra care when they create their product, so that while it mentions the inspired product, it has its own identity, such as different packaging, branding and names, with clear communication, without the intention of misleading the consumer. The “dupes” should only use the original product as an inspiration, in order to make a more accessible alternative, however, they should have an individuality so that the consumer clearly knows that they are buying the product of their brand, and not being fooled into thinking that they are buying the original product. In this sense, the protective measure for entrepreneurs who intend to manufacture/market a “dupe” consists of a thorough analysis of the impact that their product will generate and the image that it will transmit to the consumer, and there is a fine line between the “dupe” and the counterfeit/infringing product, which means that it is possible to market an inspiration, but it isn’t legal for the sale of your product to characterize unfair competition.

 

 

Counterfeit products are illegal copies of original products, intentionally designed to mislead the consumer into believing they are buying the genuine product. They have visual characteristics, packaging and design that are extremely similar to the product they tend to copy, but generally of a lower quality. Pirate copies appropriate the prestige and investments of a brand, with the intention of generating an association between its products and those of its competitor, and the business of the infringing brand will certainly be affected, which finds its distinctive signs the pillars of its business, being subject to all kinds of misfortune that such improper associations can cause, such as disappointment with the pirated products marketed and the experience created by it.

 

Therefore, the act of reproducing someone else’s trademark is a crime against Industrial Property. In fact, the right to object to third parties who intend to usurp your rights, in whole or in part, is protected under the terms of item I of article 189 of Law 9.279/96.

 

On the other hand, a “dupe” is a product that has been made by taking inspiration from another product that has a high value, with the intention of creating a “cheap version” of the original product. In this sense, the initial intention of the dupe is not to mislead the consumer into thinking they are buying the original product, but rather to let the consumer know exactly what product they are buying, because they are interested in a cheaper version of a product they cannot afford. In this sense, unlike the counterfeit product, the dupe is intended to be a legitimate alternative, with its own personality, containing different packaging, brands and names, and advertising to the consumer must be carried out clearly.

 

For this reason, it is essential that the entrepreneur takes care when they are creating dupes, ensuring that their product has its own identity. This can be a risky practice and, if the product misleads the consumer, its marketing could be considered unfair competition, subjecting the person responsible to the penalties provided for in the law, since inspiration is allowed, but literal copying or the creation of a product that could confuse the consumer is forbidden. Companies wishing to design on the basis of an existing product must ensure that their version has innovative features and its own identity.

 

—

 

Author: Isabela Nicolella Vendramelli and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Source: 

https://www.infomoney.com.br/mercados/tendencia-dupe-pode-ser-uma-nova-ameaca-para-os-varejistas-de-vestuario-avalia-xp/ 

https://neofeed.com.br/finde/o-fenomeno-dupe-conquista-os-jovens-copia-ou-o-espirito-do-tempo/

https://sejarelevante.fdc.org.br/dupe-ou-fake-entenda-conceito-que-movimenta-a-geracao-z/ 

https://www.metropoles.com/colunas/ilca-maria-estevao/dupe-ou-plagio-entenda-o-fenomeno-que-tem-ocorrido-na-moda 

 

—

 

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

The legal team representing Brazilian songwriters Ruan Prado, Luana Matos, Patrick Graue, and Calixto Afiune has filed a criminal complaint against Shakira this Tuesday (11), alleging that the Colombian singer plagiarized the song “Tu Tu Tu”, originally performed by Mariana Fagundes and Léo Santana, in her track “Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53.”

 

The complaint, which also names the other authors of Shakira’s song, requests the opening of a police investigation to examine the alleged plagiarism and its potential criminal implications. In Brazil, a criminal complaint (notícia-crime) is a formal request to law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible offense, in this case, copyright infringement.

 

According to the songwriters’ attorney, legal action was taken after claims that Shakira’s team and Sony Music had been delaying negotiations and failing to reach an amicable resolution with the Brazilian composers.

 

 

The complaint not only highlights the melodic and rhythmic similarities between the two songs but also points to Shakira’s history of plagiarism accusations.

 

Previous cases cited include “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)”, the official 2010 FIFA World Cup anthem, which was accused of copying “Zangalewa” by the Cameroonian group Golden Sounds. Additionally, her song “Loca” faced allegations of unauthorized use of elements from “Loca con su Tiguere”, originally composed by Dominican musician Ramón Arias Vásquez.

 

As of now, neither Shakira nor her representatives have made an official statement regarding the allegations.

If the police investigation proceeds, the case will examine the criminal and financial aspects of the alleged plagiarism, potentially leading to legal consequences such as financial compensation or other penalties, depending on the court’s ruling.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fonte: https://rollingstone.com.br/noticia/compositores-brasileiros-entram-com-noticia-crime-contra-shakira-por-plagio-de-tu-tu-tu/#google_vignette

 

—

 

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 1st Chamber of Business Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice has ruled in a new decision saying that the use of a common expression in a company’s trade name is not capable of creating confusion or association because it lacks distinctiveness and originality.  

 

This decision came about after the plaintiff, the owner of a trademark containing the expression “melanina”, which means “melanin” in Portuguese, filed a lawsuit against a certain establishment that used this term in its trade name.

 

In excerpts from the decision, the judge states that:

It is, in fact, a common noun, designating a substance that gives pigmentation to the skin. In view of this, there is no way of recognizing any kind of infringement arising from the trademark used by the appellee, since the designation does not denote full equivalence to that registered by the appellant.”

 

 

It should be emphasized that Brazilian Industrial Property legislation, in its article 124, item VI, states that signs of a generic or common nature are not registrable as trademarks, unless they are sufficiently distinctive. In this sense, we can say that the decision was the right one to allow the brand and the establishment to coexist.

 

Meanwhile, owners of trademark registrations must always guarantee their rights and always aim to protect their trademarks that are sufficiently distinctive, always paying attention to the requirements set out in the legislation to guarantee ever broader protection. Otherwise, the trademark may be diluted and non-exclusive use by third parties is permitted.

 

—

 

Autores: Daniela Russo, Advogada Junior e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fontes:

https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-fev-09/uso-de-expressao-generica-em-nome-fantasia-nao-gera-confusao-decide-tj-sp/ 

 

—

 

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

Petrobras has once again broken its own record for patent filings, registering 142 new applications with Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in 2023. This marks the third consecutive year of surpassing its previous records. Additionally, the company now holds over 1,200 active patents.

 

Petrobras (Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.) is Brazil’s largest energy company and a global leader in oil, gas, and renewable energy. Established in 1953, the state-controlled corporation has been instrumental in Brazil’s economic growth and energy independence.

 

Petrobras is renowned for its pioneering advancements in deepwater and ultra-deepwater oil exploration, particularly in the pre-salt reserves, some of the world’s most significant offshore oil fields.

 

As outlined in its 2024-2028 Strategic Plan, Petrobras has committed $3.6 billion to Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) over the next five years—the largest investment in innovation in the company’s history. By 2028, funding for decarbonization and new energy sources is expected to increase by 30%, reinforcing Petrobras’ transition towards sustainable energy.

 

 

Over the past decade, Petrobras has invested more than R$ 24 billion in RD&I, with most of this funding allocated to partnerships with Science and Technology Institutions (ICTs). In 2022 alone, over R$ 4 billion was invested in research.

 

In 2023, the company focused its innovation efforts on exploration and production, refining, gas and energy, renewables, and sustainable development projects such as decarbonization and emission reduction. Notably, around 13% of all patents filed in the past two years were directly linked to clean energy and decarbonization technologies.

 

Looking ahead to 2025, Petrobras has secured strategic partnerships in offshore wind energy, successfully processed its first 100% renewable feedstock at a refinery, and continues advancing research in hydrogen, carbon capture, wind and solar energy, bio-refining, and next-generation production systems.

 

In 2023 alone, Petrobras launched over 200 innovation challenges, securing R$ 1 billion in contracted investments and forming 800 partnerships. The company’s commitment to innovation was recognized in 2024 with four national and international awards.

 

As the company shifts toward a more sustainable energy mix, it is expanding investments in renewables, carbon capture, and next-generation fuels, reinforcing its position as a major player in the global energy transition.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Enzo Toyoda Coppola e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fonte: https://www.ldsoft.com.br/news/petrobras-bate-recorde-pelo-3o-ano-seguido-em-deposito-de-patentes/

 

—

 

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.

Since 2017, Brazil and Denmark have engaged in active cooperation in the field of Intellectual Property (IP), with the objective of enhancing the registration, examination, and protection of IP rights in Brazil, as well as fostering innovation and the commercialization of IP assets in Brazil and Latin America.

 

On February 3, 2025, representatives from the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (“BPTO”) and the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (“DKPTO”) convened in Rio de Janeiro to review the initiatives undertaken throughout 2024 and to outline strategic activities for 2025. The key initiatives for this year include:

 

• Participation in IP Key project events: collaboration on initiatives aimed at strengthening IP systems across Latin America – https://ipkey.eu/en/latin-america;
• Actions on plain language: simplifying IP-related communications to enhance accessibility for users and empower them with greater knowledge on the subject;
• Exchange of experiences on patent examination guidelines: facilitating the sharing of expertise and the harmonization of examination procedures between Brazil and Denmark;
• Visits by INPI technical areas to the DKPTO: strengthening technical and operational exchanges between the two institutions;
• Workshop on strategic planning in Information Technology (IT): enhancing technological infrastructure related to IP management; and
• Training program on organizational change management: equipping professionals with the necessary skills to navigate internal and external transformations in the IP sector.

 

 

Additionally, recent BPTO initiatives were highlighted during the meeting, including the enhancement of stakeholder engagement, direct interaction with users, organizational restructuring, and the establishment of a regional office in Manaus, Amazonas.

 

The cooperation between BPTO and DKPTO, currently in its third phase since November 2023, seeks not only to refine Brazil’s IP framework but also to promote the strategic utilization of IP as a key element of industrial policy across Latin America.

 

—