When picturing how Trademark infringement begins, it is common to think that it is merely the reproduction or imitation of a well-known name. However, trademark infringement encompasses much more than just a similarity or identity between the nominative elements of two or more Trademarks.
This is precisely the issue that arises when we look at the conflict between “99” and “Keeta” Trademarks owned by large companies focused on the food delivery sector through world-renowned apps. It turns out that, at first glance, when comparing both names, the Trademark Infringement Injunction Action filed by “99” trademark’s owner seems unreasonable to the layman, since, at first sight, one might ask, “but if both have completely different names, why would the Keeta trademark be a violation of the 99 Trademark?”
This question is easily answered by analyzing two important aspects of Intellectual Property Law in Brazil. From the perspective of current Brazilian legislation, Law No. 9,279 of 1996, more specifically in Section 122, states that: “Visually perceptible distinctive signs that are not covered by legal prohibitions are eligible for registration as Trademarks.”
This means that there is express and legal protection in Brazilian Law that specifically addresses visually perceptible signs, stating that Trademark protection covers not only the name, but also its figurative element and overall impression, provided that it does not fall under any legal prohibitions.
When observing the protection granted to “99” Trademark registrations, we find that there are word, composite and figurative trademarks, such that the exclusive Trademark right corresponds not only to the word element “99,” but also to the logo that covers the word + combination of colors.
However, for the present analysis, it is important that we specifically examine the protected logo of the “99” Trademark. The discussion regarding the possible conflict between the ‘99’ and “Keeta” Trademarks began with an analysis of the overall presentation of both trademarks, which use aesthetics, colors, and logos that bear a certain resemblance to each other.
Although the two trademarks have completely different word elements, the owner of “99” Trademark registrations claims that both use the same colors, namely yellow and black; use similar typeface; and operate in the same market segment, namely food delivery via an app. Thus, based on the above allegations, it is understood that the Trademarks may be conflicting, that is, they may be susceptible to cause confusion and undue association among consumers, who would be led to believe that “Keeta” has some connection with the well-known “99.”
In fact, as observed, trademark protection in Brazil goes far beyond the registered name, also protecting the Trade Dress, composition, letters, and combination of colors claimed in registered logos. Therefore, the complaint filed by the owner of “99” could be considered genuine, showing the importance to always seek specialized assistance regarding trademark protection and enforcement in a given country to avoid infringing third-party’s Intellectual Property Rights such as Trademarks, Trade Dress and Copyrights.
—
Authors: Maria Eduarda Rodrigues Farias, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.
Source: 99 acusa Keeta de ‘pegar carona’ em sua fama com cores similares… – Veja mais em https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/reuters/2025/08/19/99-acusa-keeta-de-pegar-carona-em-sua-fama-com-cores-similares.htm?cmpid=copiaecola
—
“If you would like to receive further details about this topic, please contact the authors or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate as autoras ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”