Legal But Immoral? On the Denial of Cannabis Trademark Applications in Brazil

Home | Canna Law Blog | Legal But Immoral? On the Denial of Cannabis Trademark Applications in Brazil Rafael Arcuri, Henrique Coelho, and Marcelo De Vita Greco just penned a great article in Consultor Jurídico on the denials by the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of applications to register cannabis trademark on the grounds that they offend morality and good customs. The basis for these denials is Article 124(III) of Brazil's Industrial Property Law (LPI), which prohibits the registration as trademarks of any "expressions, figures, drawings or any other signs that are contrary to morals and standards of respectability or that offend the honor or image of persons or attempt freedom of conscience, belief, religious cult or ideas and feelings worthy of respect and veneration." INPI has relied on Article 124(III) to deny the registration of marks such as TheHemp Company. Yet industrial hemp is legal in Brazil, as medical cannabis use is authorized in certain cases. How then, the authors ask, can goods be "at the same time, legal and immoral? What is more, immoral not only in a rhetorical, extralegal way [but] immoral in a way that gives rise to illegality." Determining what is, as a legal matter, "contrary to morals and standards of respectability" is bound to be a fraught endeavor. As the authors note, these terms are "vague and have great connotative charge, making it difficult to delimit, a priori, what they describe." To the extent, however, that we can give some contours to that standard, it is hard to see how "a legal, taxed product that saves lives and is sustainable is immoral." Complicating the matter, INPI has not been consistent in its application of Article 124(III). For instance, the agency has approved the registration of the device mark CÂNHAMO CÂNHAMO, which includes a cannabis leaf (cânhamo means "hemp"). INPI has also approved the registration of the word mark PLANET HEMP. The authors conclude by calling for "predictable and rational" application of the rules, a call that should be heeded by trademark authorities worldwide. While the underlying legal issues are different, we could use more rationality here in the United States when it comes to cannabis trademarks. To deny cannabis businesses that operate legally in highly regulated states the ability to register their trademarks is to place them at the same level as counterfeiters and other criminals. This does not make sense. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Intellectual Property/Branding, International Cannabis Law Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply