One of the most interesting aspects of this rivalry is the lawsuit filed by 99 against Keeta. The company accused Keeta of illegally copying key elements of its visual identity, including the color palette, app layout, and even the appearance of the couriers' uniforms. According to 99, this practice misleads customers and weakens its brand recognition. Keeta defended itself by arguing that its green and yellow colors are directly derived from the visual identity of its parent company, Meituan. Furthermore, it emphasized that the color yellow is widely used by logistics and courier companies in Brazil, so no one can monopolize it. They also jokingly added that if they were going to copy anyone, the logical target would be the market leader, iFood, with its distinctive red color scheme. The São Paulo State Court has, for the time being, refrained from making a decision and has not ordered Keeta to change its colors, emphasizing that technical expertise and consumer perception studies will be needed to resolve the dispute.
Keeta opened a second front in the battle, accusing 99 of unfair competition in the online space. The case concerned a common practice in online marketing: buying keywords in search engines like Google. Keeta alleged that 99 had purchased advertising for the keyword "Keeta." As a result, when a user entered the name of their app into the search engine, the first result was an advertisement from the competing company, 99, which was trying to capture traffic and potential customers in this way. In this case, the court acted swiftly, siding with Keeta. It issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting 99 from further using the name and trademark of Keeta in its advertising campaigns. This shows that Brazilian courts treat such practices as a real threat and a form of unfair competition, especially when a new player is trying to build its position in the market.
Both cases, although concerning different aspects, revolve around the concept known in intellectual property law as “trade dress.” Although Brazilian regulations do not define it directly, Brazilian courts, including the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), consistently protect the overall image of a product or service to prevent consumer confusion. “Trade dress” is nothing more than the general appearance and impression that a brand evokes – its colors, shapes, graphics, and even the design of an application or the uniform of an employee. In the food delivery industry, where quick recognition of an icon on a smartphone screen or a delivery person’s jacket on the street is crucial, a consistent and distinctive image is invaluable. Therefore, the protection of “trade dress” is becoming as important as the traditional registration of a trademark, acting as a kind of invisible shield protecting the company’s identity.
The rivalry between Keet and 99 offers a valuable lesson for any company entering a new, competitive market. First, before launching, it's essential to thoroughly analyze not only the registered trademarks of competitors but also their overall branding, from colors to the appearance of advertising materials. Documenting one's own creative process can prove crucial in case of potential accusations of copying. Second, marketing activities on the internet should be conducted thoughtfully and ethically, avoiding aggressive tactics that could be considered unfair competition. Finally, if a legal dispute arises regarding the appearance of a brand, one must be prepared to present solid evidence, such as consumer opinion surveys or expert analyses. The Brazilian case demonstrates that intellectual property is now much more than just a defensive shield; it is a powerful strategic tool that allows companies to actively shape their position in the market.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
