After Brazil bans fixed-odds betting, how should related trademark applications be viewed and prepared?

For Chinese companies arranging sports-betting and fixed-odds-betting-related brands in Brazil, what needs to be re-checked is the premise of the application, not the application documents themselves.

On 2026 year 9 month 25 day, the Brazilian federal government issued Provisional Measure (Medida Provisória) No. 1.394/2026, published in the official gazette the same day. Article 1 of the measure prohibits, within Brazil, the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting, covering both physical premises and online channels; even where the operator is established abroad, it falls within the prohibition if it offers the service to users located in Brazil. The prohibition covers two categories: betting on real sporting events, and betting on virtual events in online games. The same article also makes clear that other lottery modalities authorized by law are unaffected. In addition, the measure applies to the relevant operations in the states and the Federal District, and authorizations already granted by the states and the Federal District will terminate in accordance with the period set out in the measure.

Fixed-odds betting had previously been brought into the regulatory framework under Law No. 2023 of 14.790; this provisional measure is a comprehensive prohibition of that market, not a tightening of the regulatory standard.

A statement on the trademark side followed. On 10 month 6 day, INPI issued a statement on the handling of trademark applications related to fixed-odds betting: item 5.4.6 of the Trademark Manual concerning sports-betting services will be revised, but the revision will take place only after analyzing the subsequent developments of the provisional measure and their impact on trademark examination.

Two points in time in this statement need to be viewed separately. First, the ban is already in force, and it is directed at the betting business activity itself; second, the trademark examination rules have not yet been updated, and INPI expressly places the manual revision after assessment. In other words, there is currently no new examination standard already in place on which to conclude that a given sports-betting trademark application will necessarily be refused or necessarily maintained. Equating the ban directly with a trademark examination conclusion is the most likely misreading at this stage.

The duration of the provisional measure's effect is another variable that needs to be placed on the monitoring list. Under the Brazilian Constitution, a provisional measure has legal effect from the date of publication, and Congress must complete its consideration within 120 days (60 days, extendable once); if not approved, it loses effect. In other words, the ban is currently in force, but its continuation depends on the congressional process. According to Brazilian media reports, organizations representing betting companies have challenged it before the Federal Supreme Court, and a justice has asked the Federal Attorney General's Office to provide information on the relevant requests. This process and the pace of INPI's manual revision form two lines that need to be tracked simultaneously.

The actions to take before then can be summarized as three items.

First, take stock of existing applications by status. Applications that have not yet entered substantive examination, those that have received examination opinions, and those that have been approved for registration each correspond to different deadlines and available actions, so it is necessary to check each one individually for any deadlines awaiting a response or whether it is necessary to proactively submit explanations.

Second, reassess how the services are described. For applications not yet filed, confirm whether the designated services still accurately describe the actual business; at the same time, assess whether to shift the focus of the filing strategy toward brand-extension classes not directly related to betting. These judgments all depend on the specific application documents and cannot be made based on news headlines alone.

Third, incorporate this change into records and monitoring. Record the application number, class, status and corresponding business, and include the revised text of item 5.4.6 of the manual and the congressional process of the provisional measure in periodic reviews, so that a rapid response can be made once the rules are clear.

According to INPI's explanation, what is affected at its core is the wording and acceptability of the services—the object of the manual revision is precisely the provisions on services; as for the question of the validity of registered trademarks after the business is prohibited, the source does not address it, and it should not be inferred.

For brand owners preparing to enter the Brazilian market, the more prudent sequence is to first confirm the brand's actual use plans and the scope of goods and services in the local market, and then decide on the classes and filing timing.

It should be noted that this article discusses this one regulatory change within the Brazilian jurisdiction; it does not address whether other markets adopt similar measures, nor does it predict the outcome of any specific application. Before the revised manual text is published, what can be checked is the application status, the wording of the services and the actual business, and what can be prepared is the records and monitoring arrangements; as for whether an application should continue and how it should be amended, decisions should be made in light of the official text in effect at that time and the materials of the individual case.

Source: Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) explanation dated 2026 year 10 month 6 day, "Atualização sobre o tratamento de pedidos de marcas relacionados a apostas de quota fixa"; Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 (issued on 2026 year 9 month 25 day and published in the official gazette the same day).

Note: This article provides general intellectual property education and practical observations and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.