Parallel importation remains a highly contentious issue globally. Brazil is no outlier in this regard, rendering it imperative to scrutinize its legal nuances within the domestic Intellectual Property and Antitrust frameworks, with a particular emphasis on emerging jurisprudential trends.
Parallel importation, often described as gray market trade, involves the commercialization of genuine products imported into a country without the express consent of the intellectual property’s owner. In short, the term refers to goods produced and sold legally, and subsequently exported. Within the specialized field of industrial property, this subject remains one of the most enigmatic and legally complex subjects due to the inherent friction between territorial exclusivity and the globalized nature of modern global trade.
At the international level, there is no uniform legal standard governing the matter. Although the TRIPS Agreement establishes a general framework for the protection of intellectual property, it deliberately refrained from adopting a common rule on exhaustion of rights, precisely because States were unable to reach a consensus on the subject. As a result, each jurisdiction remains free to define its own regulatory model in light of domestic economic policy, competition concerns, and market structure.
Those who defend parallel importation usually emphasize its role in curbing artificial price disparities between markets. Their argument is that the maintenance of significantly different prices for identical products, based solely on the purchasing power or regulatory environment of a given country, may distort competition and unduly burden local consumers. From this perspective, parallel importation can operate as a corrective mechanism against market segmentation strategies that are economically advantageous to right holders, but potentially harmful to consumer welfare.
Its principal legal justification, however, is found in the doctrine of exhaustion of rights. Once the trademark owner has voluntarily introduced the product into the market and obtained remuneration from the first sale, the power to control the subsequent circulation of that specific item tends, in principle, to be exhausted. The debate, therefore, is not whether the product is authentic, but whether the legal system permits the right holder to extend its control beyond the first lawful placement of the good into commerce.
Critics, on the other hand, stress the impact of parallel importation on the economic structure of authorized distribution networks. Official distributors often invest heavily in regulatory compliance, local marketing, after-sales support, logistics, and brand positioning. Parallel importers, by entering the market without bearing the same burdens, may benefit from a form of free riding, which can weaken the contractual equilibrium of the distribution chain and undermine long-term investment in the brand’s local presence.
Another critical concern involves the erosion of quality control and the increased risk of counterfeiting. Parallel channels frequently obscure the chain of custody, making it difficult to verify the origin of goods and facilitating the infiltration of fraudulent products alongside genuine items. Moreover, these operations are often associated with tax evasion and smuggling, which further destabilize the formal economy and consumer safety.
International trends continue to evolve around the doctrine of exhaustion of rights upon the first sale. Many jurisdictions are moving toward broader interpretations of this principle to favor free competition, though the distinction between national, regional, and international exhaustion remains a primary point of contention in high level trade negotiations and judicial reviews.
In the Brazilian context, case law has historically been divided, reflecting the tension between the protection of industrial property and the constitutional principle of free enterprise. Courts have issued conflicting rulings, at times qualifying parallel imports as acts of unfair competition and at other times dismissing such claims when the products are proven to be authentic.
The current trend within Brazilian superior courts suggests a shift toward admitting parallel importation under specific conditions. Recent interpretations indicate that such imports may be considered lawful provided that the goods originate from a direct and authorized distributor of the rightsholder in the foreign market, thereby ensuring the authenticity of the product while promoting competitive pricing.
In Brazil, the treatment of parallel importation reflects precisely this tension. The issue cannot be reduced either to an unrestricted defense of trademark exclusivity or to an automatic endorsement of the free circulation of genuine goods. The central legal challenge is to reconcile the protection of the right holder’s legitimate economic sphere with the demands of market competition, while ensuring that the circulation of authentic products does not become a vehicle for unlawful practices, consumer confusion, or the erosion of legally structured distribution arrangements.
—
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.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”