February 12, 2026

Recently, the Specialized Chamber in Intellectual Property of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (SEPI-TFJA) established a precedent in the field of utility models: a utility model registration was invalidated on the grounds that it does not meet the requirement of utility or novelty. 

The case focused on whether a button warranted protection as a utility model whose main characteristic is as an “interchangeable” flexible lace.  The Chamber concluded that it did not, arguing that interchangeability provides only aesthetic or design value, but does not provide a real technical advantage improving upon the function of the object.

The technical dispute centered on whether a utility model is defined by its novel mechanical and structural characteristics. Given that previous techniques described similar devices, the Chamber concluded that the IMPI did not make an adequate assessment of the prior art detailing similar mechanisms.

In clarifying the division of what can be protected as a utility model, this ruling establishes that a registration must comply with:

• Absolute Novelty: There must be no prior record in the “state of the art”.
• Structural Configuration: Innovation must be mechanical. If the change is only visual, making the object look different, this would be an industrial design.
• Technical Advantage: There must be a demonstrable improvement in operation, use or manufacture. In this case, the Chamber determined that there was no inventive step optimizing the closure mechanism with respect to what was already known.

Patents, utility models, and industrial designs are commonly confused, but the key lies in the inventive step:

• Patent: Requires that the invention is not obvious to a technician in the field.
• Utility Model: It is considered a minor invention since it may be obvious to a technician, but it must necessarily result in an improvement in the function.

Utility models are a powerful tool to protect practical solutions and mechanical updates that optimize everyday use.  However, this precedent highlights that exclusivity is not granted for ornamental changes, rather for innovations that solve real technical problems.