On December 3, 2025, the Federal Revenue of Brazil (Customs) published Interpretative Declaratory Act (ADI) RFB No. 3\/2025, establishing clearer and more consistent criteria for applying the Customs Regulation in cases involving imported goods suspected of counterfeiting or false indication of origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The new guidance consolidates an important interpretation for fighting piracy at the border: it confirms that Customs may administratively detain suspicious goods and, when appropriate, apply the penalty of forfeiture. This includes cases involving products bearing counterfeit, altered, or imitated trademarks\u2014or goods with false origin information\u2014particularly when public\u2011interest concerns are at stake, such as health, public order, fair competition, consumer protection, environmental protection, or national security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Key clarifications introduced by the ADI<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Detention procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When there is suspicion of counterfeiting, alteration, or imitation of a trademark, or false indication of origin, the Customs Auditor in charge must follow the procedure set out in Articles 605\u2013608 of the Customs Regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 TRIPS compliance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because these actions fall within the authority of Customs and relate to matters of public law, applying the procedures described in the ADI does not constitute a violation of the TRIPS Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Prima facie evidence from the right holder<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If the trademark owner does not request judicial seizure within the timeframe established in Article 606, Customs may continue to detain the goods and request that the right holder provide preliminary (prima facie) evidence of IP infringement and\/or information indicating violations of customs law. Importers must still be guaranteed due process and full defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Penalty of forfeiture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Once a violation of public\u2011interest legal rights is proven, Customs must apply the penalty of forfeiture, as established in Decree\u2011Law No. 37\/1966 and Article 689 of the Customs Regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Territorial scope<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The ADI clarifies that the same enforcement logic applies, where relevant, even when the customs infraction occurs outside primary customs areas (i.e., in secondary zones).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why this standardization matters<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Historically, customs units across Brazil applied inconsistent criteria in counterfeiting cases\u2014sometimes requiring a court order before moving forward with certain actions. It represents a significant step toward greater legal certainty, reduced judicial burden, and improved efficiency in combating piracy and smuggling, with direct benefits for consumer safety and rights holders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Practical impacts and considerations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For trademark owners and other right holders:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The ADI may reduce the need for urgent court measures to preserve the detention of goods \u2014 as long as right holders respond quickly and provide strong technical documentation. It is advisable to maintain organized materials such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These materials help support administrative decisions when Customs requests information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For importers and logistics operators<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new framework reinforces the need for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because the ADI emphasizes due process, technical documents and clear explanations may be critical in demonstrating that a shipment is lawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For public governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Once a violation of public\u2011interest legal rights is confirmed, administrative action may result in forfeiture. This is especially relevant in sectors where counterfeiting poses health and safety risks or distorts competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ADI RFB No. 3\/2025 is a meaningful advancement in strengthening border enforcement for IP protection. It unifies how the Federal Revenue of Brazil (Customs) handles cases involving suspected counterfeiting or false indication of origin. At the same time, it creates practical demands for right holders, importers, and logistics operators, who may need to adapt their internal procedures and improve their readiness to produce evidence and respond promptly to notifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ClarkeModet Brazil is closely monitoring this regulatory development and offers specialized support in evidence preparation, risk analysis, administrative strategy, and, when necessary, complementary judicial measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We remain available to help clients navigate this new landscape and define the most appropriate strategy for each case. For support, you can contact our experts Patr\u00edcia Falc\u00e3o (pfalcao@clarkemodet.com<\/a>) and Mauro Ferreira (mferreira@clarkemodet.com<\/a>).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On December 3, 2025, the Federal Revenue of Brazil (Customs) published Interpretative Declaratory Act (ADI) RFB No. 3\/2025, establishing clearer and more consistent criteria for applying the Customs Regulation in cases involving imported goods suspected of counterfeiting or false indication of origin. The new guidance consolidates an important interpretation for fighting piracy at the border: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":19145,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"country":[30],"industry":[98,94,92,100,97,101],"class_list":["post-19213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legislative-news","country-br","industry-chemical-industry","industry-consumption-fashion-and-distribution","industry-food-and-drinks","industry-medical-technology","industry-pharma-and-biotechnology","industry-telecommunications-computing-electronics"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
ADI RFB No. 3\/2025 reduces these disparities, avoids unnecessary litigation, and strengthens the effectiveness of border enforcement in intellectual property matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n