Uruguay

In Uruguay, the criminal prosecution of infringements of intellectual property rights operates within the framework of the adversarial criminal justice system, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 19,293). Under this system, ownership of the criminal action lies with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which directs the investigation and exercises the punitive claim before the judiciary.

Notwithstanding the above, trademark offenses are legally subject to prosecution upon complaint by the rights holder, as their technical expertise and interest in enforcement are decisive for triggering the system. Accordingly, proceedings are typically initiated through complaints filed by trademark owners or as a result of administrative or police actions — including those in the customs sphere — which are subsequently brought before the courts.

The investigation unfolds in a preliminary phase led by the Prosecutor’s Office, during which evidence is gathered, including seizures, inspections, and expert reports. Once sufficient indicia are obtained, the prosecutor requests the formalization of the investigation, thereby initiating the criminal process proper before the competent judge.

It should be noted that, in practice, a large proportion of these cases are handled through procedural simplification mechanisms, particularly the abbreviated procedure (Article 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), as well as through alternative dispute resolution methods such as reparation agreements.

The primary legal source governing criminal trademark matters is Law No. 17,011, whose sanctioning regime is set out in Articles 81 to 83. These provisions define offenses related to the counterfeiting, imitation, and unlawful exploitation of registered distinctive signs.

The legal framework distinguishes various categories of unlawful conduct. On the one hand, it penalizes the reproduction, imitation, or unauthorized use of registered trademarks for profit or to cause harm. On the other, it criminalizes conduct related to the improper handling of packaging bearing third-party trademarks, as well as the manufacture, storage, distribution, and commercialization of products incorporating counterfeit signs.

From an evidentiary standpoint, it is necessary to establish the materiality of the infringement. In this context, technical evidence is particularly significant. As a result of legislative and jurisprudential developments, the admissibility of technical reports prepared by trademark owners themselves has become established; through comparative analysis, such reports can demonstrate the counterfeit nature of seized goods.

With respect to legal consequences, the applicable sanctions include custodial sentences depending on the seriousness of the conduct, in accordance with the ranges set forth in Law No. 17,011. In particular, Article 81 provides for penalties ranging from six months’ imprisonment to three years’ penitentiary for those who reproduce, imitate, or unlawfully use a registered trademark for profit or to cause harm, while Article 83 establishes penalties ranging from three months’ imprisonment to six years’ penitentiary for those who knowingly manufacture, store, distribute, or commercialize products identified with counterfeit trademarks.

Additionally, the legal framework provides for the confiscation of infringing goods and the possibility of ordering their destruction or, in certain cases, their donation after removal of the logos, once their counterfeit nature has been established.

It is worth noting that infringements of intellectual property rights are not isolated phenomena, but are often linked to other criminal offenses under the penal system. In particular, they are frequently associated with crimes such as smuggling, receiving stolen goods, drug trafficking, and, in certain cases, may constitute predicate offenses for money laundering, in so far as they generate illicit profits capable of being introduced into the formal economic circuit.

In this regard, the sanctioning regime must be analyzed comprehensively, considering not only the specific penalties provided for trademark offenses, but also their possible concurrence with other criminal offenses and the additional legal consequences this entails.

The rights holder plays a significant procedural role, not only as complainant/victim, but also as an active collaborator in the production of evidence, particularly through the submission of expert reports. Furthermore, their participation is central in potential alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as reparation agreements, as they are the victim of the offense.

The Uruguayan judicial system does not have courts or prosecutor’s offices specialized exclusively in intellectual property matters. Jurisdiction lies with general criminal courts and prosecutor’s offices.

However, at the operational level, there are police and administrative units with a certain degree of specialization in the investigation of complex crimes, including those related to intellectual property.

In order to understand the process followed in Uruguay when facing an infringement of intellectual property rights, it is first necessary to focus on the legal framework that surrounds it.

First, attention must be given to the following laws: Law No. 17,011 (Trademark Law), Law No. 9,739, known as the “Copyright Law,” and Law No. 17,164, relating to industrial property and patents. These laws regulate the civil and criminal actions that may be initiated by a party whose rights have been infringed; here, we will focus on the former.

Article 81 of the Trademark Law establishes when an intellectual property infringement occurs, highlighting as key operative verbs, “manufactures, counterfeits, adulterates, or imitates a mark registered in the registry.” It is important to emphasize that trademark registration becomes essential in the protection of intellectual and industrial property rights, an issue to which we will return shortly.

Now, focusing on civil actions, the holder of trademark rights, in the event of a possible infringement, has the authority to act in various ways. Article 87 of the aforementioned law authorizes the party whose rights have been violated to bring an action for damages against the authors and co-authors of the intellectual property infringement.

On the other hand, Article 88 further allows the holder of registered trademarks to take action against anyone attempting to use a mark identical or similar to the registered one, by filing a claim before the judiciary requesting the prohibition of the use of the unregistered mark.

Both proceedings — damages claims and actions seeking cessation and prohibition of trademark use — are brought before the civil courts of first instance. It is worth briefly recalling that the Uruguayan Judiciary is organized according to subject matter and the type of procedure to be followed.

It is also essential to clarify that Uruguayan legislation provides for extrajudicial solutions to intellectual property disputes. Article 2161 of the Uruguayan Civil Code allows parties to enter into an out-of-court agreement aimed at resolving the conflict between them, granting such agreement the authority of res judicata upon execution.

With the aim of providing greater protection to intellectual property rights, Uruguayan legislation offers several alternatives for individuals.

It should be noted that, in order to protect industrial property, an individual must first register it before the National Directorate of Industrial Property (DNPI), which grants the necessary legal protection to defend against infringements.

The procedure for registering a trademark, copyright, or patent is duly established and detailed in the aforementioned laws. Once an individual has successfully registered a trademark, Article 9 of the Trademark Law states that “registration of a trademark gives rise to the presumption that the natural or legal person in whose name the registration was made is its legitimate owner.”

Article 13 adds that “once the registration of a trademark is granted, its holder acquires the protection conferred by it…,” thereby granting the holder of intellectual property rights the ability to initiate actions against those who infringe upon their rights.

The protection granted by trademark registration lasts for a period of 10 years and is indefinitely renewable for equal periods, in accordance with Article 18 of the Trademark Law.

Available actions and remedies include:

• Out-of-court settlement agreement.
• Civil lawsuit.
• Damages and compensation.
• Request for cessation of the use of the registered trademark.
• Destruction of infringing goods.
• Reimbursement of expenses.

With regard to compensation for damages in cases of infringement of industrial property rights, Uruguayan legislation provides for two avenues: an extrajudicial route and a judicial one.

As for the extrajudicial route, as previously mentioned, the Civil Code establishes the possibility for the parties to reach an agreement, which may include a compensatory clause aimed at reimbursing the expenses incurred by the holder of the trademark, patent, or copyright.

On the other hand, at the judicial level, Article 87 of Law No. 17,011 authorizes the injured party to “…bring actions for damages against the authors and co-authors of the activities subject to criminal sanctions.” Additionally, Law No. 17,164, in its Articles 100 and following, also establishes that “those who commercialize or distribute infringing products shall be liable for the damages caused…”. The same is provided by Law No. 9,739 in the case of copyright, particularly in its Articles 21, 32, and 51.

It should be clarified that actions for damages are governed by the procedural provisions set forth in the Uruguayan General Code of Procedure.

In Uruguay, although there is no systematized public database of case law regarding intellectual property rights infringements, in practice legal actions are carried out to prevent the transit, importation, storage, and commercialization of counterfeit goods, particularly in sectors such as clothing, perfumery, electronics, and toys.

In recent years, various procedures have been developed in coordination with the National Customs Directorate, including the seizure of goods in transit passing through Uruguay to other countries in the region:

Case 1: Goods in transit — Port of Montevideo (toys)

Officials from the Illicit Cargo Department of the National Customs Directorate inspected a container in transit at the Port of Montevideo, originating from Dubai and destined for Paraguay, detecting toys inside that allegedly infringed intellectual property rights.

Initially, the rights holders were notified and proceeded to inspect the detained goods, confirming their counterfeit nature. Based on this, they filed the corresponding criminal complaint and formal request for prosecution, promoting the investigation before the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The case was referred to the 2nd Turn Flagrant Offenses Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, which ordered the extraction of samples and the continuation of proceedings. Subsequently, the technical expert report provided by the trademark holders confirmed the counterfeit nature of the products, consolidating the evidentiary basis necessary to determine the final disposition of the goods.

It is worth noting that, although the goods were under a customs transit regime — which in principle limits the application of certain customs tax measures — this does not prevent the application of criminal law where a potential offense is identified. Indeed, the exception inherent to the transit regime operates within customs law but does not exclude criminal prosecution when conduct defined as an offense under trademark law is present. This allowed the authorities to proceed with seizure and promote subsequent destruction.

Case 2: Local seizure — formal retail establishment in the city of Paso de los Toros (clothing and footwear)

Officials from the Customs Response and Intelligence Group inspected a commercial establishment in the city of Paso de los Toros, in the department of Tacuarembó (near the border with Brazil), where the commercialization of allegedly infringing goods was identified.

Initially, representatives of the trademark holders were involved and inspected the seized goods, conducting the corresponding technical analysis and confirming their counterfeit nature. Based on this, they filed a complaint and formally initiated proceedings.

The case was brought before the competent court of first instance, which, based on the evidence produced — including technical reports submitted by the rights holders — issued a judgment classifying the conduct as the customs offense of smuggling, in accordance with the Customs Code of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (CAROU). Consequently, financial penalties were imposed, as well as the destruction of the goods pursuant to Article 84 of Trademark Law No. 17,011.

This case is particularly relevant as it demonstrates the close relationship between trademark offenses and customs violations, in so far as the commercialization of counterfeit goods in the domestic market is often preceded by their unlawful entry into national territory. In this sense, smuggling not only involves evasion of customs controls but is functionally linked to the subsequent distribution of infringing goods, enabling a broader and more effective enforcement approach.

Large-scale operations aimed at dismantling distribution networks for counterfeit goods in the domestic market have also been carried out.

Case 3: “Ñemonda Operation” — counterfeit perfumes and “dupes”

Within the framework of the so-called “Ñemonda Operation,” coordinated raids were conducted by the National Police, the National Customs Directorate, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, leading to the seizure of a significant volume of perfumes allegedly infringing intellectual property rights.

The investigation originated from the interception of a truck on a national route transporting suspicious goods toward the Brazilian border, with the aim of exporting them. Upon inspection, perfumes showing signs of infringement were found. Based on this initial procedure and subsequent intelligence work, authorities identified the point of sale of the goods, which led to the raid of a free-shop-type establishment in the city of Rivera (a dry border with Brazil), where a substantial quantity of similar products was found.

Rights holders were called upon to inspect the goods seized in both operations, confirming that the products not only reproduced registered trademarks but also substantially imitated the presentation and overall appearance (trade dress) of original products, including packaging, color schemes, typography, and design. In particular, so-called “dupe” products were identified, which, while not necessarily identical, are designed to create a direct association with original branded goods.

Based on this, rights holders filed the corresponding criminal complaints, driving the criminal investigation forward. These actions reflect an expansion in the practical scope of intellectual property protection, which now extends beyond traditional trademark counterfeiting to include new forms of infringement related to trade dress imitation and products designed to evoke well-known brands.

The case is currently under investigation, without prejudice to its potential expansion to additional criminal offenses or new individuals involved, consolidating a broader and more comprehensive enforcement approach.

Case 4: Criminal prosecution (formalization) — importation of counterfeit goods (clothing and accessories)

This case originated from a customs control procedure in which a container from China, consigned to a Uruguayan importing company, was inspected. Inside, clothing and accessories bearing distinctive signs of international brands were found, allegedly in infringement.

Following the inspection, the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Economic and Complex Crimes (2nd Turn) took charge of the investigation. At an initial stage, trademark holders were invited to inspect the seized goods, confirming the unauthorized use of registered trademarks. Based on this, a criminal complaint was filed.

Subsequently, within the framework of the investigation, the prosecutor ordered technical expert examinations, both private and official (conducted by forensic police), which confirmed the counterfeit nature of the goods. Additional evidentiary measures were carried out to determine the origin of the goods, the importation scheme, and their potential commercialization in the domestic market, revealing elements linked to an organized distribution structure.

Based on the evidence gathered, the Prosecutor’s Office requested the formalization of the investigation before the Specialized Organized Crime Court of First Instance, which was granted. The defendant was charged with alleged offenses under Articles 81 and 83 of Law No. 17,011, in conjunction with other criminal offenses. The case is currently ongoing, with precautionary measures imposed while the investigation continues.

These cases demonstrate not only the coexistence of trademark and customs infringements, but also an evolution toward a more comprehensive approach to intellectual property protection, in which investigations are led by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and aimed not only at seizing goods but also at identifying organized importation and distribution structures.

Regarding the so-called “grey market,” Uruguayan law does not establish a general prohibition on the commercialization of original products outside authorized channels. Therefore, the sale of such goods does not, in principle, constitute an autonomous criminal offense.

However, certain circumstances may give rise to legal liability. In particular, when products are introduced into the country in violation of customs regulations, the offense of smuggling may be constituted. Likewise, in cases where trademarks, images, or protected content are used without authorization — such as in online publications or promotional materials — intellectual property infringements may arise.

Additionally, such conduct may fall within the scope of unfair competition, in accordance with Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention, especially when it involves undue exploitation of another party’s reputation or distortion of normal market conditions.

Furthermore, various complementary regulations impact the commercialization of both counterfeit goods and grey market products. In particular, Law No. 17,250 on consumer protection establishes obligations regarding product information, safety, and quality, the breach of which may result in administrative sanctions.

Likewise, in regulated sectors — such as cosmetics, perfumes, food, or electrical products — specific requirements apply concerning registration, authorization, and labeling. Non-compliance with these requirements, which is common in products sold outside official channels, may lead to prohibition of sale, withdrawal from the market, and sanctions imposed by the competent authorities.

In conclusion, although the grey market is not classified as an autonomous offense in Uruguay, the existing legal framework allows these practices to be addressed from multiple perspectives, combining tools from customs, criminal, civil, consumer, and regulatory law, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

In recent years, counterfeiting practices in Uruguay have changed considerably, mainly as a result of the growth of e-commerce and social media. Infringers no longer rely exclusively on traditional street sales or large-scale imports, but instead increasingly operate through online channels, fragmented shipments, and informal distribution networks.

One of the main current trends is the commercialization of so-called “dupes”, especially in sectors such as perfumes, cosmetics, fashion, and accessories. These products are usually promoted as being “inspired by” well-known brands and imitate elements such as packaging, colors, bottle shapes, or overall presentation, seeking to generate an association with the original products without necessarily reproducing the trademarks identically. As a consequence, enforcement actions increasingly involve not only trademark infringement claims, but also unfair competition, trade dress, copyright, and consumer protection arguments.

At the same time, the use of digital platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Mercado Libre, Temu, Shopee, and WhatsApp has become increasingly common for the promotion and sale of infringing goods. In some cases, counterfeiters use live-stream sales or temporary promotional videos, which makes enforcement more difficult due to the speed with which content may disappear.

Another growing practice is the use of small courier shipments, postal parcels, or passenger luggage to introduce counterfeit products into the country, particularly in relation to cosmetics, perfumes, toys, pharmaceuticals, and fashion products. This type of fragmented importation creates additional challenges for customs authorities because the products enter in reduced quantities through multiple channels.

In response to these developments, cooperation between rights holders and enforcement authorities has become increasingly important. Customs recordals, online monitoring, coordinated investigations, and the use of technical reports are now essential tools for identifying and combating more sophisticated forms of infringement.

In recent years, particularly due to the increase in the use of online platforms, there has been a significant rise in infringements committed via the internet.

The commercialization of products that violate intellectual property rights has become increasingly common, with infringing listings being identified daily on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Mercado Libre, and TikTok, among others.

Additionally, the impact of foreign e-commerce platforms has intensified, especially those operating from China with direct shipments to Uruguay, resulting in an exponential increase in small packages entering via courier and postal services.

In many cases, these parcels contain counterfeit products, posing a significant challenge for customs control. The fragmentation and volume of shipments make detection difficult, requiring the National Customs Directorate to strengthen its risk analysis and selective inspection mechanisms, in coordination with rights holders.

This scenario reflects a shift toward more decentralized and smaller-scale illicit commercialization schemes, as well as a growing trend toward online-to-offline business models, which demands constant adaptation of trademark protection strategies.

The sale and promotion of products through live streams or promotional videos on social media is becoming increasingly common. In fact, this promotional video format was recently also implemented on Mercado Libre.

In the case of live sales, enforcement is sometimes difficult due to the immediacy of the transaction and the possibility that the video may be deleted shortly after being uploaded.

So-called “dupe culture” has played a significant role in the increase of potentially infringing conduct, particularly in the digital sphere. These are products that, without necessarily reproducing trademarks identically, imitate distinctive elements of a product’s presentation or configuration (trade dress), with the potential to create consumer association or confusion regarding well-known brands.

From a legal perspective, these practices may constitute trademark infringement and/or unfair competition. In Uruguayan practice, particularly in sectors such as perfumery, an increase in this type of product has been observed, leading to an expansion of trademark protection efforts by authorities and rights holders, who have conducted successful operations targeting this emerging trend. This phenomenon has required broadening the scope of legal actions, going beyond traditional counterfeiting cases to address new forms of infringement based on undue evocation and commercial imitation.

No new specific legislation been proposed or implemented in Uruguay to shift the responsibility to online marketplaces to ensure they are more vigilant in vetting sellers and removing counterfeit and infringing items.

Over time, and thanks to the specialization of the relevant prosecutor’s offices, it has been possible to move toward more economically efficient solutions. In particular, reparation agreements in criminal proceedings, promoted by prosecutors, have allowed infringers to reimburse the expenses incurred by the trademark holder.

Although everything possible is being done, civil proceedings in Uruguay remain lengthy. In some cases, extrajudicial measures are offered, which can yield results more quickly and be financially advantageous for the affected party, who avoids incurring excessive costs, and it is even possible to reach an agreement in which the infringer reimburses such expenses.

There is also a growing trend toward adopting a more cost-efficient approach through extrajudicial channels, seeking the recovery of expenses via agreements with infringers. This strategy allows trademark holders to avoid the time and costs associated with obtaining a judgment in a civil process, thereby optimizing their resources.

Shein — a global e-commerce platform focused on fast fashion, originally founded in China and now operating worldwide — has emerged as a problematic platform over the last 12–18 months.

We have a proprietary monitoring software called HORUS, through which we monitor online marketplaces and social media platforms, conduct takedowns of infringing listings, and investigate targets. These activities are carried out on a monthly basis as part of a comprehensive and ongoing brand protection strategy.

First, to determine disputes regarding domain names, it is important to explain how domain names are managed in Uruguay. Through the website “nic.com.uy”, users with an account can check which domain names are already registered and proceed to register a domain.

Regarding domain name disputes, an arbitration regulation for .UY domain names was established, which sets out the procedures that the parties must follow. It should be noted that this procedure is also governed by the arbitration regulations of the Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje, the Corte de Arbitraje Internacional del Mercosur, and the Bolsa de Comercio del Uruguay.

In cases where there is a dispute over a domain name, the party that initially requests arbitration must notify the secretary-general of the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Uruguayan Chamber of Commerce of Uruguay, (herein “Center”) and the opposing party. The tribunal in these cases will be composed of one or three arbitrators, depending on the criteria agreed upon by the parties.

Article 12 of the regulation, section 2, establishes that the process begins with notification to the secretary-general of the center. The secretary-general will then convene both parties to sign an arbitration agreement within a maximum period of 15 days.

If the parties reach an agreement, they may present it at the previously mentioned hearing; otherwise, the process continues. If one of the parties fails to attend the hearing or refuses to sign the arbitration agreement, the law allows the claimant to seek an arbitral award through the courts.

If conciliation is unsuccessfully attempted, the claimant is entitled to submit a formal claim to the arbitral tribunal, with the requirements for this set out in Articles 14 and following of the regulation. Once the claim is answered and evidence is submitted, the tribunal will summon the parties to hear the award, thereby concluding the procedure.

There has been a high increase in the number of fraudulent websites in the past year, both in the creation of sites that pretend to be the official sites of the brands, as well as fake e-commerce sites that steal user data.

Following the trend from last year, there has been an exponential increase in official websites for various brands. Scammers create domains by adding “Uruguay” to the brand names, for example, “https://www.vansuruguay.com”. These are fraudulent sites designed to steal personal information from users, including banking details.

New top-level domains (TLDs) continue to be a problem, as the site may have the same name as the legitimate one that the scammers are trying to imitate, but a different TLD, and an uninformed consumer can more easily fall into the scam. Also, some TLDs are very cheap for scammers to create multiple sites under the same main domain name, and they all look legitimate to common users.

In recent years, and particularly with the acceleration of digital commerce, we have observed a significant increase in brand counterfeiting on online platforms, both within our jurisdiction and across Latin America.

We have also identified a growing use of short-form video content and live-commerce features to promote counterfeit products. Sellers increasingly use live streams or brief videos to showcase products, interact directly with consumers, and create a sense of urgency through limited-time offers.

These formats allow infringers to reach large audiences very quickly and, in many cases, evade traditional monitoring mechanisms that rely on product listings.

Social media, such as Facebook and TikTok, continue to be a critical tool for bad actors in Uruguay.

We have also observed an increase in the use of private groups, encrypted messaging apps, and closed communities, where sellers distribute catalogs or product lists and coordinate sales outside publicly searchable environments.

This approach significantly complicates monitoring and enforcement efforts, as many of these activities take place in restricted-access spaces with lower visibility for traditional detection tools.

Encrypted messaging applications such as Telegram are also emerging as venues for illicit commerce.

In the last 12 months, some platforms have strengthened their “notice and takedown” mechanisms and brand protection programs, enabling rights holders to report infringing listings more efficiently. Additionally, some have implemented automated detection tools, including image recognition and keyword monitoring, which can help identify potentially infringing products at scale.

In December 2023, Law No. 20212 of 2023 was approved, under which the government made changes in multiple areas nationwide. Two Articles were added that explicitly regulate AI, establishing guiding principles for the development of future regulations. We do not have specific laws regulating AI yet.

There are currently no official criteria affecting lawyers in respect of the use of AI in Uruguay.

Although Uruguay is a pioneer in the region in matters of personal data protection, the current regulations do not expressly regulate artificial intelligence. Nevertheless, they do contemplate relevant aspects such as automated decision-making and data processing in general. In this regard, such processing must be carried out on the basis of prior, informed and valid consent, as well as for a specific and legitimate purpose.

These principles are fully applicable to the use of personal data in the context of artificial intelligence.

We have had no cases of deepfakes in Uruguay so far.

Uruguay already has a legal framework for cryptoassets under Law No. 20,345 (2024), which recognizes virtual assets and grants regulatory and supervisory powers to the Central Bank of Uruguay.

While the law establishes a general framework, specific regulations are still being developed through complementary rules issued by the Central Bank, particularly regarding providers of virtual asset services.

In Uruguay, streaming content piracy is not regulated as a standalone offense, but it is fully addressed through an integrated set of intellectual property, telecommunications, and cybercrime laws, applied through a dynamic interpretation of the legal framework.

In this regard, Law No. 9,739 and its amendments recognize the rights of intellectual property holders, including exclusive rights of reproduction, public communication, and making works available, which are directly applicable to the unauthorized transmission of audiovisual content via digital platforms and/or the internet. Complementary legislation — such as Law No. 17,520 — allows for sanctions against the illicit capture and distribution of signals, while more recent provisions, such as Law No. 20,327 on cybercrime, introduce relevant criminal offenses in cases where digital piracy is combined with the improper use of devices or unlawful data handling.

Furthermore, the Uruguayan legal system has evolved to incorporate mechanisms specifically oriented toward the digital environment, recognizing that streaming piracy represents a technologically updated manifestation of traditional copyright infringements, but one that requires responses adapted to its dynamics and scale.

Uruguay currently has specific mechanisms for blocking access to illegal online content, both at the administrative and judicial levels.

In particular, Article 712 of Law No. 19,924, regulated by Decree No. 345/022, empowers the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (URSEC) to order the administrative blocking of websites that distribute illegal content — especially subscription television services — by instructing internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent access to certain URLs or domain name system (DNS) addresses from within the national territory.

Additionally, Article 233 of Law No. 20,075, regulated by Decree No. 324/023, establishes a specific real-time blocking regime for illegal live broadcasts of sporting events, allowing immediate and temporary measures during the event itself. This is a particularly effective tool against content with high economic and temporal value.

In parallel, the Uruguayan judicial system has recognized the use of precautionary measures to block access to websites as a tool to protect intellectual property rights, even in the absence of identification of the direct infringer, prioritizing the prevention of harm. This approach has been consolidated in relevant precedents where dynamic blocking of platforms facilitating access to illegal broadcasts was ordered.

From a functional perspective, these measures are complemented by the role of digital intermediaries, whose involvement is key to limiting the availability, distribution, and monetization of infringing content. In this sense, the Uruguayan model reflects an evolution toward more effective protection strategies, focused on intervening at points of access and visibility of illicit content rather than pursuing individual infringers.

While we have not particularly noticed an increase in the use of QRs, phishers are increasing their techniques dramatically on a daily basis, so it would not be unexpected to see an increase in the use of QRs in the near future.

In Uruguay, the National Customs Directorate (DNA) has the authority to detect and suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights as a preventive administrative measure.

However, in matters of intellectual property rights protection, the system is based on the principle of party-driven action, in accordance with the standards of the TRIPS Agreement and national law. This means that, while customs may retain suspicious goods, definitive seizure and prosecution of the case require the rights holder to file a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which acts as the holder of the criminal action, with the rights holder serving as the victim (not a party).

As an exception, when the conduct also constitutes a customs violation (for example, smuggling), authorities may act ex officio. However, if the goods additionally infringe intellectual property rights, the rights holder must file the corresponding complaint; otherwise, in most cases, the goods may be disposed of through public auction.

It is worth noting that the Uruguayan system also allows action against goods in international transit, permitting their seizure while passing through national territory, even if their final destination is another country.

The procedure generally begins with the detection of suspicious goods by customs, which proceeds to retain them and notifies the representative of the trademark holder.

In this context, registering intellectual property rights with customs is a key tool, as it allows officials to identify protected products and quickly contact the rights holder’s legal representatives. However, the system has recently evolved toward a more demanding model: according to Notice No. 23/2025, rights holders who, after being notified twice within the same calendar year, fail to take the corresponding legal actions may be suspended from the registry for one year, thus losing access to future notifications.

Once notified, the rights holder can inspect the goods, take photographic records and samples, and if the infringement is confirmed, must file the corresponding criminal complaint, which enables the intervention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judiciary.

Regarding costs:

• Storage and deposit. Generally covered by the state while the goods remain under customs/judicial control.
• Destruction. By law, must be borne by the rights holder, unless the infringer agrees to cover the costs in advance, or the judge orders otherwise as part of a sentence.

Advantages of the system include:

• Ability to take action against goods in transit.
• Effective coordination between rights holders and public authorities.
• Registering intellectual property rights with customs facilitates the detection of goods and notification to legal representatives.

Disadvantages of the system include:

• Operational challenges in the face of increasing international trade and small shipments.
• Limitations in authorities’ risk analysis systems regarding new methods of counterfeiting, transit, and logistics of goods.

Over the past few years, the Uruguayan system has evolved toward a more agile and efficient model, highlighted by the simplification of destruction procedures — including the possibility of destruction prior to a conviction — and the development of sustainable destruction campaigns aimed at ensuring proper final disposal of goods, incorporating environmental criteria such as waste recycling.

Additionally, the recent adjustment to the registration of intellectual property rights with customs (Notice No. 23/2025) reflects a trend toward a more collaborative, shared responsibility framework, in which access to border protection tools depends on the active involvement of the rights holder and their local representative.

As an additional challenge, the growth of e-commerce and the massive influx of small shipments continue to strain the operational capacity of customs control, requiring constant adaptation of monitoring and risk analysis mechanisms.

The National Customs Directorate works in close coordination with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies, allowing administrative actions to quickly transition into criminal investigations, especially in cases involving organized structures or smuggling.

The border control procedure allows for the identification of relevant information, such as data on importers/exporters, commercial and customs documentation (customs declaration, invoices, bills of lading, and so on), and the origin and destination of goods.

However, access to this information is limited by the principle of confidentiality or secrecy of customs proceedings, as established in CAROU, which obliges officials to maintain confidentiality regarding information obtained in the exercise of their duties.

In this regard, rights holders do not have direct access to complete information at the administrative customs level. However, once they file the corresponding criminal complaint and the investigation begins, they gain access to this information within the framework of prosecutorial and judicial proceedings, in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure.

In Uruguay, businesses caught importing counterfeit products may face both criminal and customs-related sanctions. Available remedies include the seizure and destruction of the goods, financial penalties under the Customs Code (CAROU), criminal sanctions under Trademark Law No. 17.011, precautionary measures, and potential civil claims for damages. In practice, rights holders may also pursue extrajudicial settlements aimed at recovering investigation and enforcement costs. Uruguayan authorities are receptive to training on counterfeiting and intellectual property rights protection, with rights holders actively participating.

In this context, the role of the Chamber for the Fight Against Piracy and Smuggling (CALPYC), a Uruguayan non-profit association that brings together rights holders, is particularly important. CALPYC actively promotes public–private cooperation, including training programs, information exchange, and coordination with authorities.

Through CALPYC and direct collaboration agreements with public agencies, it is possible to implement:

• Specific training on identifying counterfeit products.
• Practical workshops for customs and law enforcement officials.
• Development and distribution of technical materials and identification guides.
• Support in inspection and verification procedures.

Additionally, the registration of intellectual property rights with customs complements this framework by facilitating and establishing direct communication channels between authorities and rights holders’ representatives.

Recent global and regional commercial changes, particularly the expansion of e-commerce, direct-to-consumer international shipping, and the growing use of digital platforms, have had a significant impact on the commercialization and circulation of infringing goods in Uruguay. These developments appear to reflect structural and long-term changes rather than temporary disruptions.

As a result, it has become necessary for enforcement authorities to adapt their inspection, risk analysis, and investigative mechanisms to address more decentralized commercialization models, fragmented shipments, and rapidly evolving online sales methods.

In recent years, Uruguay has experienced a significant change both in the types of goods seized and in the methods of marketing and importation.

On one hand, traditional categories of counterfeit goods — such as clothing, footwear, accessories, and electronics — remain present. However, there has been a notable increase in products related to the cosmetics and perfumery sector, particularly in the phenomenon of so-called “dupes.” These products, while not always exact replicas of a brand, imitate distinctive elements, packaging, or trade dress of well-known brands, expanding the scope of infringement beyond classical counterfeiting and posing new legal and evidentiary challenges.

On the other hand, there has been a transformation in logistics methods, with a sustained growth in infringing goods entering the country through small international shipments, often via courier and postal services. This trend is directly linked to the rise of e-commerce and, in particular, to the impact of international platforms — mainly originating from Asia — that enable direct-to-consumer shipping.

As a result, the volume of goods has become fragmented, partially replacing large shipments with multiple smaller consignments. This makes detection through traditional control and risk analysis mechanisms more difficult, increasing the operational complexity for customs authorities.