Ibrahim Saleh v. Secalux: São Paulo Appeal Dismissed in Clothes Support Patent Dispute
Ibrahim Mohamed Saleh brought declaratory judgement proceedings against Secalux Comércio e Indústria Ltda over Brazilian utility model BRMU8200761U, covering a disposal introduced in a support for clothes or similar articles. The Court of Justice of São Paulo closed the matter in October 2024, rejecting the appellate motions for failing to identify any defect meeting the statutory threshold under Article 1,022 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure.
São Paulo court rejects embargos de declaração in utility model row
Ibrahim Mohamed Saleh initiated declaratory judgement proceedings against Secalux Comércio e Indústria Ltda before the courts of São Paulo State, asserting rights connected to Brazilian utility model BRMU8200761U — a device described as a disposal introduced in a support for clothes or similar articles. The case, numbered 1002015-60.2018.8.26.0529, was heard at the Court of Justice of São Paulo, which sits as an appellate tribunal for state-level civil matters in Brazil.
The proceedings culminated on 8 October 2024 when the court rejected the outstanding motions — characterised as embargos de declaração, the Brazilian procedural tool for seeking clarification or correction of a ruling. The court found, in its own words, ‘nothing to be changed, absent defects capable of being framed in article 1,022 of the procedural law in force,’ meaning the motions did not satisfy the statutory grounds of obscurity, contradiction, omission, or material error required for that remedy.
Because the filing date is not present in the public record, the total duration of the dispute cannot be independently verified. The dismissal of embargos de declaração at appellate level typically signals that the underlying merits decision had already been rendered and was not successfully challenged; however, the substantive outcome of those underlying proceedings is not disclosed in the available record. What drove the original declaratory claim — whether invalidity, non-infringement, or another ground — remains unknown from the public file.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 0 days
Case closed October 8, 2024; filing date not on public record
Appeal dismissed under Art. 1,022 CPC: what the ruling means for both parties
Embargos de declaração: a narrow procedural remedy
Under Article 1,022 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, embargos de declaração may only be filed to correct obscurity, contradiction, omission, or material error in a decision. The court found none of these defects present, making dismissal the mandatory outcome. This is a procedural, not merits, determination — it confirms the prior ruling stands but does not itself adjudicate the underlying declaratory claims.
No Art. 1,022 defect foundSaleh’s appellate motion fails to shift the decision
The rejection of the embargos means Saleh was unable to obtain any correction or clarification of the appellate court’s prior ruling through this procedural route. Whether that underlying ruling was favourable or adverse to him is not disclosed in the public record. Further challenge would likely require an extraordinary appeal to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), subject to strict admissibility requirements.
Motion rejected; prior ruling standsSecalux retains the status quo from the prior ruling
For Secalux, dismissal of the embargos preserves whatever outcome was reached in the underlying appellate decision. If that decision was in Secalux’s favour, this dismissal reinforces it. If it was adverse, Secalux similarly faces the same residual appellate risk as Saleh. The public record does not disclose the merits disposition, so commercial certainty for either party remains conditional on that undisclosed outcome.
Underlying ruling preservedUtility model enforceability in Brazil remains unresolved on the public record
Brazilian utility models (modelos de utilidade) offer a lower inventive-step threshold than invention patents but carry meaningful enforcement weight in state courts. This case illustrates that declaratory disputes over such rights can persist through multiple appellate stages. Competitors operating in the clothes-support and fixtures category should monitor the full docket for the underlying merits outcome before drawing conclusions about BRMU8200761U’s enforceability.
Merits outcome not publicly confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ibrahim Mohamed Saleh | Individual | Individual rights-holder — claimant in declaratory proceedings over BRMU8200761USearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Secalux Comércio e Indústria Ltda | Individual | Secalux Comércio e Indústria Ltda — Brazilian manufacturer and trader in the lighting and fixtures sectorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s verdict is confined to the procedural question raised by the embargos de declaração: whether the prior appellate decision contained an omission, contradiction, obscurity, or material error within the meaning of Article 1,022 CPC. Finding none, the motions were rejected in their entirety. This ruling does not constitute a merits adjudication of the underlying declaratory claim concerning BRMU8200761U — it merely forecloses this particular corrective pathway. The substantive rights as between Saleh and Secalux are governed by the undisclosed underlying appellate decision.
BRMU8200761U — disposal introduced in support for clothes or similars
BRMU8200761U is a Brazilian utility model registration granted by the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI). Brazilian utility models protect functional innovations to the shape or configuration of an object and carry a protection term of 15 years from the filing date. The subject matter — a disposal introduced in a support for clothes or similar articles — falls within the household goods and fixtures category. Utility models in Brazil require ‘inventive act’ (ato inventivo), a lower threshold than the inventive step required for invention patents, making them commercially accessible but potentially narrower in claim scope.
For competitors in the Brazilian household goods, retail fixtures, or garment storage sectors, this registration signals that Ibrahim Saleh holds a registered right capable of supporting infringement or declaratory proceedings in state courts. The fact that this dispute reached the Court of Justice of São Paulo and involved a formal declaratory judgement action suggests the parties regard the commercial scope of the right as meaningful. Any manufacturer or distributor of clothes supports or analogous hanging devices operating in the Brazilian market should assess whether their designs fall within the scope of BRMU8200761U before commercialisation.
Should you run an FTO against BRMU8200761U?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes clothes supports, garment hangers, or similar fixture devices into the Brazilian market, BRMU8200761U is a live registration you should evaluate. The existence of active litigation — including declaratory proceedings before a São Paulo appellate court — confirms that the rights-holder is prepared to enforce this utility model. An FTO analysis should assess both the registration’s current legal status at INPI and the scope of its claims relative to your specific product geometry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map BRMU8200761U’s claim language against your product specifications, identify related INPI filings in the clothes-support category, and surface any prior art that could underpin a validity challenge. Eureka’s Brazilian patent database coverage includes utility model registrations and applications, giving your legal and R&D teams a single workspace for clearance analysis and monitoring of this and related rights.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8200761U to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar utility model disputes before the Court of Justice of São Paulo
Cases involving Brazilian utility model enforcement and declaratory judgement proceedings before the Court of Justice of São Paulo, filtered by technology class and procedural posture.
What this case signals for the Brazilian utility model IP landscape
This São Paulo appellate dismissal highlights procedural discipline in Brazilian IP disputes and the limits of embargos de declaração as a tactical tool.
Embargos de declaração are a narrow remedy — misuse carries cost risk
Brazilian courts apply Article 1,022 strictly. Filing embargos without a genuine defect (obscurity, contradiction, omission, or error) risks rejection and, in some circuits, costs sanctions for abuse of process. IP litigants should treat this tool as corrective, not as a backdoor to reargue the merits.
Brazilian utility models warrant proactive FTO analysis before product launch
BRMU8200761U illustrates that utility models in everyday product categories — here, clothes supports — can generate multi-year state court litigation. Companies distributing or manufacturing in Brazil should screen INPI utility model filings in their product class before commercialisation to avoid declaratory or infringement exposure.
Saleh v Secalux — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the outstanding embargos de declaração on 8 October 2024, finding no defect under Article 1,022 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. This closed the appellate motions phase, but the public record does not disclose the outcome of the underlying declaratory judgement on the merits.
BRMU8200761U is a Brazilian utility model registered with INPI, covering a ‘disposal introduced in support for clothes or similars’ — a functional configuration of a clothes-support or hanging device. Brazilian utility models protect shape or configuration innovations with a 15-year term and a lower inventive threshold than invention patents.
Embargos de declaração are a Brazilian procedural motion filed under Article 1,022 CPC to correct obscurity, contradiction, omission, or material error in a court ruling. The São Paulo court dismissed them here because it found no such defect in the prior decision — meaning the prior ruling was sufficiently clear and complete on its face.
Following dismissal of embargos de declaração at appellate level, a party may potentially seek an extraordinary appeal to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) on federal law questions, or to the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) on constitutional grounds. Both routes carry strict admissibility requirements and low admission rates in commercial patent matters.
The October 2024 ruling addresses only the procedural embargos and does not constitute a merits ruling on BRMU8200761U’s validity or infringement as against Secalux or any third party. The utility model registration remains on the INPI register unless and until formally invalidated. Third parties should conduct an independent FTO and monitor the full São Paulo docket for the underlying merits outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.