{"id":137162,"date":"2026-04-08T12:45:19","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:45:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=137162"},"modified":"2026-04-08T12:45:19","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:45:19","slug":"portugal-trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/portugal-trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Portugal: Trademark Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-137162","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-trademark-disputes","jurisdictions-portugal"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Inventa<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2023\/08\/logotipo-inventa-intellectual-property-horizontalrgb.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Inventa<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2023\/08\/logotipo-inventa-intellectual-property-horizontalrgb.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in Portugal<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney \u2013 and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, a Power of Attorney (PoA) is generally required to represent a client before the Court in trademark infringement matters. The PoA must be signed by the client or an authorized representative of the company. In most cases, notarization or legalization is not required.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, there is no legal obligation to send a cease-and-desist letter (or <em>carta de interpela\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>) before initiating trademark infringement proceedings. It might be advisable to send such a letter as a first step, especially to demonstrate good faith and provide the alleged infringer with an opportunity to cease the infringing activity voluntarily. However, courts may view the absence of a pre-action notice as justified, particularly where there is urgency, or a risk of evidence being destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>There are no formal legal consequences or procedural penalties. Yet, failure to do so might affect the assessment of costs or damages if the court finds that the litigation could have been avoided through prior notice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Portuguese law, there is no specific statutory provision equivalent to the UK\u2019s concept of \u201cunjustified threats\u201d in intellectual property disputes. Therefore, sending a cease-and-desist letter does not, in itself, give rise to liability for the trademark owner.<\/p>\n<p>While there is no direct \u201cunjustified threats\u201d regime, a cease-and-desist letter that contains baseless accusations, defamatory language, or threats of disproportionate legal action could, in theory, give rise to claims under general civil liability principles (e.g., <em>abuso de direito<\/em> or <em>responsabilidade civil extracontratual<\/em>), particularly if it causes reputational or economic harm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings? If so, what is the minimum expectation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, it is not mandatory for the parties to attempt mediation or any other form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before initiating trademark infringement proceedings in court.<\/p>\n<p>However, ADR mechanisms such as arbitration are encouraged by the Portuguese legal system, particularly in intellectual property disputes. For example, the party affected by a decision from the INPI may resort to arbitration mechanisms through ARBITRARE instead of filing a judicial appeal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, claims for trademark infringement are heard by a specialized court focused on Intellectual Property matters. The competent court is the Intellectual Property Court (<em>Tribunal da Propriedade Intelectual<\/em>), located in Lisbon. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving trademarks, patents, designs, copyright, and other IP rights. In addition, trademark infringement claims in Portugal are decided exclusively by professional judges. The Portuguese legal system does not use juries in civil or commercial cases, including IP litigation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred? What action would a trade mark owner have to know to give rise to such a claim being time-barred (for example, is it knowing that a mark in question is in use or is it knowing that a trade mark application has been filed and\/or registered?)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Compensation can only be claimed for damages caused by acts of infringement by the end of three years, counting from the date when the injured party became aware of the harmful event.<\/p>\n<p>The knowledge relevant to trigger the three-year limitation period requires that the trademark owner have become aware of facts sufficient to ground a claim for damages. This presupposes, cumulatively, knowledge of the infringing use in the market \u2014 that is, that a third party is effectively using a confusingly similar sign in the course of trade (actual use, not merely potential use) \u2014 and knowledge that such use constitutes an infringement, meaning that the owner must be reasonably in a position to identify the unlawfulness, mere suspicion not being sufficient<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of passing off, unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Unregistered trade mark rights (<em>de facto<\/em> marks) may be enforced on the grounds of unfair competition. Although, according to Article 213, there is legal provision for <em>marcas livres<\/em>, this is only a right of priority for any person who uses a free or unregistered trade mark for a period not exceeding six months.<\/p>\n<p>The Portuguese trademark system also protects notorious trademarks (Article 234). However, parties seeking the refusal of the registration of a trademark that infringes a prior notorious mark in Portugal may only intervene in the proceedings after having filed an application for the registration of the trademark that gives rise to and substantiates their interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off,unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, the Intellectual Property Court has jurisdiction to hear claims for registered trademark infringement together with related claims such as unfair competition, trade dress infringement, and misleading advertising, and there is no need to bring these claims in separate actions, provided they are connected to the same factual and legal context.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, jurisdiction is divided between the Intellectual Property Court and the Portuguese Trademark Office (INPI), depending on the nature of the proceedings. The INPI has exclusive competence for administrative proceedings such as cancellation for non-use or genericide, while the Intellectual Property Court handles judicial infringement actions and counterclaims for invalidity based on earlier rights or absolute grounds.<\/p>\n<p>There is no formal rule of forum priority where parties must race to seize jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, this means that overlapping assessments (e.g., of validity) may proceed in parallel, but no automatic stay or transfer mechanism applies. Parties may, however, request a stay of proceedings on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific procedural context and relevance of the INPI\u2019s pending decision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, if the defendant raises a counterclaim for invalidity of the trademark being asserted against it the counterclaim is joined and heard within the same infringement action before the Intellectual Property Court.<\/p>\n<p>There is no bifurcation of proceedings. The court considers both infringement and validity issues together, and delivers a single judgment addressing all claims and counterclaims. This ensures consistency and avoids contradictory outcomes.<\/p>\n<p>However, a request for cancellation of a trademark, based, for example, on non-use for five years or on the ground that the earlier trademark has become generic, is only possible through an application filed with the INPI (Portuguese Intellectual Property Office).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does a defendant have a defence of using a mark honestly and concurrently available to them?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Portuguese trademark law does not recognise honest and concurrent use as an autonomous, codified defence in the same manner as, for example, the United Kingdom&#8217;s historical doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>The general rule is that the earlier mark prevails, and the holder of a later conflicting sign \u2014 whether registered or unregistered \u2014 cannot, as a matter of principle, resist an infringement claim solely on the basis that its use predates the claimant&#8217;s awareness or has proceeded without objection for a period of time.<\/p>\n<p>Although no autonomous defence exists, several legal instruments produce outcomes that partially replicate the effect of an honest concurrent use defence.<\/p>\n<p>The first one is Acquiescence (<em>artigo<\/em> 260.\u00ba CPI), that operates where the holder of an earlier mark has, with knowledge of the use of a later registered mark, tolerated that use for five consecutive years without taking action. Upon expiry of that period, the earlier mark owner loses the right to seek a declaration of invalidity of the later mark and to oppose its continued use, save where the later mark was applied for in bad faith. While this mechanism does not technically constitute a defence available to a defendant in ongoing infringement proceedings, it operates rather as a bar to the earlier owner&#8217;s claims, it produces a similar result in practice by legitimising the concurrent coexistence of conflicting marks after a sufficient period of undisturbed use.<\/p>\n<p>Also coexistence agreements and consent, while not a defence stricto sensu, are routinely relied upon in Portuguese practice to justify concurrent use. Where the trademark owner has consented, whether expressly or by conduct, to the use of a confusingly similar sign, the infringement claim will fail on the merits for want of unlawfulness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When considering the validity of a registered trade mark, does the Court consider whether the trade mark has been registered in bad faith? If so, what actions would indicate this bad faith?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, but only if the opposing party alleges the existence of bad faith in the application for registration (Articles 231(6), in conjunction with Article 259(1) of the Industrial Property Code).<\/p>\n<p>The CPI does not define bad faith, and Portuguese courts have largely followed the interpretive framework developed by the CJEU, given the harmonised nature of the concept. The leading EU authority remains Lindt &amp; Spr\u00fcngli, C-529\/07, in which the Court held that bad faith is an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted in the light of its plain meaning in everyday language, having regard to the context in which it appears and the objectives pursued by the legislation. Bad faith presupposes the existence of a dishonest state of mind or intention on the part of the applicant at the time of filing.<\/p>\n<p>The assessment is necessarily holistic and fact-specific, based on all relevant circumstances existing at the date of application. The burden of proof lies, in principle, on the party alleging bad faith, though once sufficient indicia are established, the evidential burden may shift to the registered proprietor to provide an explanation for the circumstances of the filing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, under Portuguese civil procedure rules, even if the main objective of the infringement proceedings is to obtain an injunction, the claimant is still required to assign a monetary value to the claim (<em>valor da causa<\/em>) at the time of filing. This value serves procedural purposes, such as determining court fees and the court\u2019s competence, but it does not limit the scope of the injunctive relief sought.<\/p>\n<p>However, there is no rule preventing a claim for an injunction simply because the trademark has limited economic value.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, preliminary injunction is available. The grounds depend on whether the infringement of the trade mark has already been initiated. If there is only a threat of infringement, it is necessary to show the ownership of the trade mark and the urgency of the injunction, considering the expected damages from the infringement (<em>periculum in mora<\/em>). If the infringement is already under way, the requirement of <em>periculum in mora<\/em> is not needed. It is solely necessary to prove the ownership of the trade mark and its violation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, if contractually allowed (Article 258(2) of the Portuguese Industrial Property Code. In general, there is no need for the trademark to be joined as a party to the proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The trademark proprietor is only required to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. In other words, the proprietor must provide the court with reliable evidence that the later mark is likely, with a high degree of probability, to create confusion among the relevant public as to the commercial origin of the goods, or a likelihood of association.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible to rely on post-sale confusion as a means of securing a finding of trade mark infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Although the Industrial Property Code does not contain any express rule to that effect, the infringement provisions, being harmonised, must be interpreted in accordance with EU law and the binding case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Since EU case law has recognised the concept of post-sale confusion, it should therefore be applied within the Portuguese legal system.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, there is no general discovery process as in common law jurisdictions. However, the court may order specific disclosure of documents or information upon request by a party, provided the requesting party identifies the documents with sufficient precision and demonstrates their relevance to the case.<\/p>\n<p>In trademark infringement actions, courts may order the defendant to disclose information such as, the origin and distribution channels of infringing goods, the quantities produced, sold, or distributed, and details of clients or suppliers.<\/p>\n<p>The claimant may also be required to disclose documents to support its claims, particularly regarding use of the trademark, market presence, or damages suffered. Requests are assessed under principles of proportionality and necessity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, the court permits expert evidence (<em>prova pericial<\/em>) in trademark infringement cases, including technical, economic, or marketing expertise, such as assessments of brand distinctiveness, reputation, or consumer perception.<\/p>\n<p>Courts may accept consumer surveys as evidence, particularly in cases involving likelihood of confusion, acquired distinctiveness, or reputation of a mark. Consumer surveys are not regulated by specific procedural rules, but their methodological soundness, neutrality, and relevance are key to their evidential weight. The court has discretion to admit or disregard the survey based on its probative value, but parties do not need prior court permission to submit survey evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to be accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?  Which party is typically responsible for signing the statement of truth (or similar), the entity itself or the entity's representatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, evidence submitted in trademark infringement proceedings does not require a formal \u201cstatement of truth\u201d as seen in some common law jurisdictions. However, witness statements or party declarations (<em>declara\u00e7\u00f5es de parte<\/em>) must be made in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and are subject to cross-examination and the court\u2019s free assessment of their credibility.<\/p>\n<p>Documentary evidence (such as contracts, invoices, or website printouts) may be submitted without a sworn statement but must be duly identified and relevant If a party knowingly presents false evidence, this may lead to procedural sanctions or even criminal liability under Portuguese law.<\/p>\n<p>In short, while no sworn declaration is mandatory, all evidence must be presented in good faith and may be challenged by the opposing party or assessed by the judge for authenticity and reliability.<\/p>\n<p>Where a legal person is required to give evidence, it does so through its legal representative (<em>representante legal<\/em>), typically a director or officer with authority to bind the entity, who appears personally, takes the oath, and gives evidence in their own name on behalf of the entity. It is that individual, not the entity in the abstract, who is personally bound by the oath and who bears personal criminal exposure for false testimony.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment and\/or strike out of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, the concept of summary judgment as known in common law systems does not exist in the same form. However, Portuguese civil procedure allows for expedited proceedings in certain cases, particularly where the facts are undisputed or the claim is documentarily supported (e.g., <em>processo sum\u00e1rio<\/em> or <em>processo especial<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>That said, in standard trademark infringement cases, the matter usually proceeds through ordinary proceedings (<em>a\u00e7\u00e3o declarativa comum<\/em>), which require full pleadings, production of evidence, and potentially a final hearing. There is no mechanism by which a claimant can obtain a judgment purely on the pleadings or without trial, unless the defendant defaults or expressly admits all relevant facts.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, while accelerated procedures may be available in specific procedural contexts, there is no formal mechanism for summary judgment of trademark infringement claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, a trademark infringement action typically takes between 9 and 24 months to reach a first instance judgment, depending on the complexity of the case and the workload of the Intellectual Property Court. Simpler cases may be resolved in under a year, while more complex matters can take up to two years or more. As for legal costs, court fees depend on the value attributed to the claim. Attorney\u2019s fees can vary significantly but typically range from \u20ac3,000 to \u20ac6,000 for straightforward cases, and from \u20ac10,000 to \u20ac25,000 or more for complex proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Decisions from the Court of First Instance (the Intellectual Property Court) may be challenged by both parties via a cassation appeal filed with the Lisbon Court of Appeal. This appeal may be based on errors of fact and\/or law. There is also a possibility to appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Court, but only in limited and exceptional circumstances and based only on errors of law.<\/p>\n<p>The appeal must be addressed to the court ad quem, which is responsible for assessing whether the appeal is procedurally admissible.<\/p>\n<p>In general, appeals have a devolutive effect, meaning that they transfer the case to the higher court for review without suspending the effects of the lower court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B\u2019s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, prior proceedings before the Portuguese Trademark Office (INPI) \u2014 such as an opposition \u2014 do not preclude a party from initiating subsequent infringement or invalidity proceedings before the courts, even if the grounds are the same. The Portuguese legal system does not apply estoppel in the same way as some common law jurisdictions. A failed opposition before the INPI does not prevent the trademark owner from later initiating infringement proceedings or filing an invalidity action based on the same earlier rights.<\/p>\n<p>This is because administrative decisions from the INPI do not have <em>res judicata<\/em> effect and are not binding on the courts. The court conducts an independent assessment of the facts and legal grounds. Therefore, a trademark owner whose opposition failed may still bring a court action for invalidity or infringement based on the same rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, the court generally considers both liability and quantum (damages) within the same proceeding, provided that the claimant has requested compensation and provided sufficient elements to support the claim.<\/p>\n<p>However, if the court finds infringement but the evidence on damages is insufficient or complex, it may defer the assessment of damages to a separate phase (<em>liquida\u00e7\u00e3o de senten\u00e7a<\/em>) or determine that the amount is to be calculated later, based on additional evidence or expert input.<\/p>\n<p>Damages in trademark infringement cases are typically assessed based on the actual loss suffered by the rightsholder and the unlawful gain obtained by the infringer. The court may consider lost profits, emerging damages, moral damages, disgorged profits, legal costs incurred in the investigation of the infringement and lawsuit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, in addition to injunctions and damages, other available remedies include seizure or destruction of infringing goods and materials, publication of the court decision at the infringer\u2019s expense, recall of products from the market, and penalties for non-compliance with a court order.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The recovery of costs from the losing party is statutorily limited. It is possible to recover the court fees paid by the winning party and lawyers\u2019 fees, up to a limit of 50% of the total amount of the court fees paid by both parties.<\/p>\n<p>It is also possible to seek recovery of these costs as damages, by arguing that they were incurred in the course of investigating the infringement and pursuing legal action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal, once the Court issues a final judgment, the losing party is typically granted a 30-day period to comply voluntarily, including with any injunction ordered. Failure to comply within this timeframe may lead to enforcement proceedings (<em>execu\u00e7\u00e3o de senten\u00e7a<\/em>) initiated by the winning party. In such proceedings, the court may impose coercive measures, such as monetary fines or seizure of assets, to compel compliance. Non-compliance with an injunction may also result in civil liability for damages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4342<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/137162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}