Social networking firm Meta Platforms, Inc. was banned from using the name “Meta” in Brazil. The decision was issued by the São Paulo State Court of Justice on Wednesday (28).
The ruling follows a seven-month court battle over trademark rights between the social networking company and Meta Serviços em Informática, a digital transformation consultancy founded in Brazil in 1990.
The Brazilian firm had applied for its trademark in 1996, which was granted by the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in 2008, over a decade before Mark Zuckerberg’s company changed its name from Facebook to Meta.
According to the ruling, the social networking firm Meta has 30 days to comply with the decision or pay a BRL 100,000 ($20,173) daily fine. An appeal is still possible.
In the ruling, the judges emphasized that the Brazilian firm’s trademark registration has existed for over a quarter of a century and that foreign companies must comply with local regulations if they wish to operate in Brazil.
According to Meta, the consultancy, the fact that the social networking firm was using the same name led to “confusion, losses, and unprecedented demands in various areas such as legal, administrative, technological, and reputational, which worsened over time.”
Such consequences include receiving numerous extrajudicial notifications related to Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp, including consumer complaints and official requests for account blocking.
Moreover, the Brazilian firm noted it is being mistakenly named as a defendant in several lawsuits that should have been directed at the American company. According to Meta, the consultancy, since the court battle between the two companies began, the number of cases mistakenly citing the Brazilian firm has gone from 27 to 143. This has prompted an unplanned expansion of the company’s legal team to deal with the lawsuits it has been receiving.
Meta Platforms has not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
While decisions of this nature are common, the Meta vs. Meta case has significant and educational implications and emphasizes that the strategy of using a single global brand can face significant challenges, according to Luiz Marinello, an intellectual property law specialist and a founding partner at Brazilian legal firm Marinello Advogados.
International agreements like the Madrid Protocol, to which Brazil is a signatory, facilitate the protection of certain trademarks in various countries, Marinello pointed out. “However, the rights of the local holder, who has undeniable precedence, must be preserved,” he added.
Marinello said that further discussion is expected until a final decision is reached, possibly through an agreement, but noted the São Paulo Court of Justice has already made a strong statement, highlighting the precedence rights of the Brazilian firm. “This lawsuit is shaping up to be one of the most intense disputes over trademark use in Brazil in recent times,” he concluded.
