A São Paulo court has sided with the popular steakhouse chain Outback in a trademark dispute, ordering a restaurant in the Amazon region to stop using visual and naming elements that closely resemble the established brand.
The case centered on allegations that the defendant restaurant was engaging in what legal experts call “parasitic exploitation” — essentially riding on the coattails of a well-known brand’s reputation and recognition. Outback’s legal team argued that the competing establishment wasn’t just using similar branding by coincidence, but was deliberately copying the chain’s distinctive trade dress, which includes everything from logo design to the overall visual presentation that customers associate with the Outback experience.
When the case first went to trial, the lower court judge agreed with Outback and granted emergency injunctive relief, immediately prohibiting the copycat restaurant from continuing its practices. Unsurprisingly, the defendants weren’t ready to give up without a fight and filed an appeal, raising several procedural objections in an attempt to overturn the ruling.
The restaurant’s defense team tried multiple angles to challenge the decision. They first argued that the state court didn’t have proper jurisdiction over the matter, claiming that the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) — Brazil’s federal trademark authority — should be involved instead. They also contended that the emergency measures weren’t justified and that the case was being heard in the wrong territorial jurisdiction.
However, Judge Tasso Duarte de Melo, who served as rapporteur for the appellate panel’s 1st Chamber, systematically dismantled each of these arguments. He clarified that state courts absolutely have the authority to hear this type of case because the lawsuit wasn’t challenging whether a trademark registration was valid in the first place — it was about enforcing existing trademark rights and addressing unfair business practices. That distinction meant BPTO’s involvement wasn’t necessary.
As for the territorial jurisdiction complaint, Judge Duarte de Melo pointed to Article 53 of Brazil’s Civil Procedure Code, which explicitly allows plaintiffs to file tort-based damage claims in their own jurisdiction. The legal framework was clear, and the defense’s objection didn’t hold water.
What really sealed the case, though, was the overwhelming evidence of imitation. The defendant restaurant hadn’t just borrowed a vague concept — they’d replicated the “Outback” name itself, complete with similar spelling and pronunciation, and even added “Steakhouse” to their branding. The visual presentation mirrored Outback’s established trade dress so closely that the court found it impossible to view this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers and benefit from Outback’s brand recognition.
Judge Duarte de Melo’s written opinion emphasized that the combination of these factors demonstrated clear intent to exploit a well-known trademark for commercial gain. The appellate panel, which also included Judges Azuma Nishi and Carlos Alberto de Salles, unanimously agreed with this assessment.
Interestingly, this wasn’t even the first time the restaurant in question had faced legal consequences. The court noted that a separate Federal Court decision had already suspended the establishment’s trademark registration and prohibited them from using the disputed name, further reinforcing that this wasn’t a borderline case of similarity but rather straightforward infringement.
The ruling serves as a strong reminder that Brazilian courts take trademark protection seriously, particularly when it comes to well-established brands, and that businesses can’t simply copy successful competitors’ identities hoping to capitalize on their reputation and customer goodwill.
—
Author: Carlos Roberto Parra, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.
Source: https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-out-28/tj-sp-proibe-restaurante-de-usar-elementos-de-marca-do-outback/
—
“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”