TRF1 Orders Registration of the “4EVINTE” Trademark and Overturns INPI’s Rejection Based on Alleged Violation of Morality and Public Decency

TRF1 Orders Registration of the “4EVINTE” Trademark and Overturns INPI’s Rejection Based on Alleged Violation of Morality and Public Decency

In a decision rendered on April 9, 2026, the Eleventh Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) overturned a decision issued by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) that had denied the registration of the trademark “4EVINTE” on the grounds of an alleged violation of morality and public decency under article 124, item III, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996 – “LPI”). Unanimously, the panel held that the possible association between the expression and cannabis culture, by itself, does not prevent trademark registration, and therefore ordered the BPTO to proceed with the registration of the mark in Nice Classes 34 and 35.

The dispute arose from a trademark application filed by a tobacco shop before the BPTO. Upon examining the application, the authority concluded that the expression “4EVINTE” referred to the code “4:20” or “420”, internationally associated in popular culture with cannabis consumption. On that basis, the BPTO denied the application pursuant to article 124, item III, of the LPI, which prohibits the registration of signs deemed contrary to morality and public decency.

Challenging the administrative denial, the claimant filed a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the BPTO’s decision and the consequent granting of the trademark registration. The claim, however, was dismissed at first instance. On appeal, the claimant argued that there was no legal prohibition against the requested registration, in addition to alleging lack of adequate reasoning in the administrative decision and violations of the principles of equality, impartiality, reasonableness, and legal certainty.

In reviewing the case, the reporting judge emphasized that the notion of “morality and public decency” constitutes an indeterminate legal concept and must therefore be interpreted in light of the Federal Constitution and the contemporary legal framework. According to the opinion, such concepts cannot be defined based on the personal, ideological, or political convictions of public officials, under penalty of violating the principle of administrative impartiality.

Although the court acknowledged the possible association between the expression and cannabis culture, it concluded that this element alone does not justify classifying the trademark as offensive to public morality. In this context, the reporting judge highlighted the evolution of the legal treatment afforded to the issue under Brazilian law, referring to the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court’s ruling in Extraordinary Appeal No. 635,659 (General Repercussion Topic 506), which decriminalized the possession of cannabis for personal use within certain limits, as well as the Superior Court of Justice’s ruling in Incident for Resolution of Repetitive Appeals No. 16 (IAC 16), which authorized the cultivation and commercial exploitation of industrial hemp for medicinal and pharmaceutical purposes. The opinion also referenced recent regulations issued by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) concerning the research, production, and medicinal use of cannabis-based products.

The panel further grounded its decision on the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. Drawing upon the classical formulations of John Stuart Mill, the reporting judge stated that state intervention in individual freedoms is only justified where there is concrete harm to third parties. From this perspective, the court concluded that the mere registration of a trademark alluding to cannabis neither constitutes unlawful speech nor incites violence, and does not produce any effective harm to public order or collective morality.

Finally, the court observed that references to cannabis culture are already broadly incorporated into public debate and artistic, musical, and audiovisual expressions in Brazil, thereby rejecting the premise that the mere registration of the trademark would be sufficient to justify state restriction based on subjective moral judgments.

The ruling may be accessed through the TRF1 PJe system under case number 1017085-69.2018.4.01.3400: Consulta pública · Justiça Federal da 1ª Região

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.