Brazil is considering a package of legislative measures that could reshape the country’s approach to counterfeiting by treating it as part of a wider ecosystem of organised crime, illicit trade and digital infringement.
While the proposals remain at a relatively early stage, local experts say they represent a significant shift in how policymakers are framing IP enforcement.
On 1 September 2026, Brazil’s External Committee on Acts of Piracy and the Brazil Legal Agenda approved an interim report prepared by Congressman Julio Lopes which sets out a package of proposals intended to strengthen the country’s institutional response to organised criminal activity.
According to the Agência Câmara de Notícias, the illegal market causes an annual loss of approximately R$500 billion to the country, including losses to industry and tax evasion.
“Counterfeiting and piracy are increasingly connected to sophisticated commercial structures, digital platforms, tax evasion, smuggling and organised crime,” note Montaury Pimenta, Machado & Vieira de Mello partner David Fernando Rodrigues and attorney Thais de Matos M Lio.
“For this reason, protecting intellectual property cannot be treated exclusively as a private enforcement matter.”
Counterfeiting through an organised-crime lens
The report contains three principal proposals.
The first is a constitutional amendment that would establish a National Authority for Combatting Criminal Organisations, conceived as an “anti-mafia” authority, focused on identifying and disrupting organised crime’s infiltration into strategic economic sectors.
The second is a bill establishing a National System for Combatting Criminal Organisations (SINEOC), designed to improve coordination among intelligence, enforcement and control authorities.
The third is a bill targeting digital piracy and counterfeiting in e-commerce, including stricter penalties for IP violations, including copyright violations.
“For trademark owners, stronger coordination among enforcement authorities, improved traceability of goods and greater attention to online marketplaces could make it easier to identify the actors and supply chains behind counterfeit products,” Rodrigues and Lio note.
Beyond that, the report represents an “important shift in the way Brazil is approaching the problem” of counterfeiting and organised crime, Rodrigues and Lio explain, as it seeks to address counterfeiting as part of a broader illicit economy, rather than as an isolated IP infringement.
“The approval of the interim report is therefore a significant development,” they say.
If implemented correctly, the proposed measures could complement the existing civil, criminal, administrative and customs mechanisms available to IP owners in Brazil to help them protect their assets.
Digital commerce and modernisation
The proposed bill focused on digital piracy and e-commerce is “highly relevant” to the current enforcement environment because it addresses the growing role of online platforms and e-commerce in the distribution of counterfeit products, Rodrigues and Lio say.
The proposed law would strengthen the response to counterfeit products offered online, increase penalties for IP and copyright violations, and seek to accelerate the treatment and disposal of seized goods.
“The proposed immediate loss [or] forfeiture of seized goods is intended to prevent enforcement proceedings from becoming unnecessarily prolonged and to increase the practical effectiveness of seizures,” Rodrigues and Lio state.
This could be particularly significant for IP owners, as the speed and scale of infringement via online sales can make traditional enforcement mechanisms more difficult to apply effectively.
Similarly, the report emphasises the need to modernise customs enforcement through technology, including the use of AI, cargo traceability and improved customs procedures.
“The underlying idea is to make enforcement more intelligence-driven, allowing authorities to identify suspicious shipments and patterns more efficiently and, where appropriate, intervene before illegal goods enter the Brazilian market,” Rodrigues and Lio explain.
For brand owners that already rely heavily on customs recordings and border measures, these developments could prove particularly valuable.
“The proposal is therefore significant not simply because of the technology itself, but because it seeks to combine technology, information and inter-agency cooperation to improve risk assessment and enforcement,” Rodrigues and Lio pose.
Welcome proposals, but implementation will be key
While the proposals have been broadly welcomed, Rodrigues and Lio stress that legislative reform alone will not solve Brazil’s counterfeiting challenges.
“We view the proposals positively, particularly because they recognise that combatting counterfeiting requires coordinated action involving IP enforcement, customs, taxation, public security and digital platforms,” they say.
“Its ultimate impact, however, will depend on how the proposals are developed and implemented in the next stages of the legislative process.”
Legislative changes must be accompanied by effective coordination among the relevant authorities, adequate resources, reliable information-sharing mechanisms and practical enforcement tools, they say.
“In our view, the proposals are therefore a welcome development, but they should be regarded as part of a broader enforcement strategy rather than as a complete solution to the problem,” they stress.
An opportunity for brand owners to engage
The External Committee on Acts of Piracy’s interim report is expressly designed to receive further input, Rodrigues and Lio explain. Therefore, businesses and industry associations have a chance to provide practical information on how illicit trade affects their sectors.
In particular, IP owners can contribute through industry associations, public consultations, hearings and other institutional channels by sharing information regarding infringement patterns, counterfeit supply chains, online marketplaces, customs risks and the practical difficulties encountered in enforcement, they detail.
“This type of engagement is particularly important at this stage because the report is expressly intended to allow further contributions before the proposals move through the next stages of development,” they urge.
What should rights holders do for now?
Until the proposed measures become law, rights holders should continue making full use of existing enforcement mechanisms, Rodrigues and Lio advise.
For trademark owners, that means maintaining active trademark portfolios in Brazil, monitoring both physical and online markets, preserving evidence of infringement and adopting a coordinated enforcement strategy.
They also recommend establishing clear protocols for identifying and reporting counterfeit products online while maintaining close contact with local counsel and enforcement authorities.
“Early identification and consistent enforcement are particularly important in cases involving organised distribution networks,” they advise.
For trademark professionals and in-house counsel, the legislative proposals represent “an important step forward”, but existing enforcement tools remain essential while these reforms work their way through the legislative process.
