6 February 2026
Chile moves to strengthen intellectual property protection
A legislative landscape in transformation
Chile is undergoing a significant legislative reform process in the intellectual property (IP) industry. Three bills currently under discussion demonstrate the legislature’s intention to strengthen the regulatory framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights, aligning with international standards and, in particular, with the commitments Chile assumed under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States (FTA).
Bills currently under review
1. Bill against piracy and compliance with the FTA with the United States
Chile’s Chamber of Deputies has reactivated a bill aimed at combating piracy, raising protection standards to meet the requirements established in the treaty signed with the United States. This initiative seeks to close regulatory gaps that have been identified as insufficient, particularly regarding sanctions for copyright infringements and enforcement mechanisms.
From a technical standpoint, one of the most relevant aspects of this bill is the introduction of a legal definition of “technological protection measures” (TPMs), along with the classification of their circumvention as a punishable act. TPMs are technical mechanisms implemented by copyright holders to control access to or use of protected works. Concrete examples include digital rights management (DRM) systems used by streaming platforms to prevent the unauthorized downloading of content, region codes in video games, or encryption systems that protect software and e books. The bill seeks to penalize both the direct circumvention of these measures and the commercialization of devices or services designed to bypass them, thus aligning with the standard established in Chapter 17 of the FTA.
2. Bill to strengthen criminal prosecution of trademark counterfeiting
This initiative proposes to reinforce the mechanisms for criminal prosecution related to the counterfeiting of trademarks. The bill includes amendments that would allow the Public Prosecutor’s Office to act more directly and effectively in the investigation and sanctioning of these activities, establishing more expedited procedures for the seizure of counterfeit products. Currently, criminal prosecution of these offenses faces significant evidentiary obstacles and timeframes that allow infringing merchandise to disperse.
As an example, consider the case of a company that owns a sports apparel brand and detects the mass sale of counterfeit products in informal markets: under the proposed regime, the Public Prosecutor could act more swiftly in obtaining seizure orders and identifying distribution networks, without relying exclusively on a complaint filed by the affected rights holder.
This strengthening of criminal prosecution could also generate synergies with the border measures regime currently in force under Law No. 19.912, which currently allows customs authorities to act ex officio only when the infringement is evident from a simple inspection of the goods, and only for a limited period of five business days. A Public Prosecutor with broader autonomous powers would allow customs detentions to more easily transition into effective criminal proceedings.
3. Bill to include industrial property crimes as predicate offenses for money laundering
This amendment would allow authorities to prosecute not only the counterfeiting of products, but also the laundering of illicit profits derived from such activity – representing a significant advancement in the understanding of counterfeiting as an organized and transnational criminal activity.
This initiative proposes to amend Article 27 of Law No. 19.913 by expressly adding the crimes defined in Articles 28, 28 bis, and 29 of the Industrial Property Law to the list of predicate offenses for money laundering. This would allow not only the confiscation of counterfeit goods, but also the seizure of assets acquired with illicit profits, directly attacking the economic incentive that sustains these criminal activities.
Conclusion
The three bills establish a more robust legal framework that aim to facilitate enforcement actions and the effective protection of intangible assets. They will require companies to review and update their IP compliance strategies, ensuring that their internal policies, contracts, and procedures align with the new regulatory requirements.
The bills also reflect the Chilean State’s commitment to strengthening IP protection, in line with its international trade obligations – especially those arising from the FTA with the United States – and to countering organized crime.
For more information, please contact the authors.
