In a legal development from Brazil's Minas Gerais state, a court has issued a preliminary injunction in favor of local firm Coffee++, directing the multinational corporation Nestle to discontinue its use of the Coffee+ brand name. The decision, documented on Wednesday, stems from concerns over potential consumer confusion between the two brands.
Judge Claudia Helena Batista, in granting the provisional measure, stated, "The defendant's (Nestle's) use of an identical mark belonging to the plaintiff could cause harm to the applicant, given that it may generate confusion among the general consuming public." The ruling mandates that Nestle remove all products bearing the Coffee+ logo from both physical and digital sales channels, with unspecified penalties for non-compliance.
Leonardo Montesanto, CEO and partner of Coffee++, affirmed the company's stance, declaring, "We will fight to the end to defend what we have built with legitimacy, hard work and love for Brazil's coffee. What is at stake is not only Coffee++. We are defending the sovereignty of Brazilian brands." He added, "We will continue to act with full transparency and determination, taking all necessary legal measures to protect what is rightfully ours."
According to Coffee++, the company has held the trademark legitimately since 2020 for coffee-related products and has registered it in over 30 countries, including the European Union, Japan, and Argentina. The firm reported that initial attempts to resolve the matter out of court were unsuccessful, leading to Nestle filing a lawsuit on September 24 seeking to invalidate the Coffee++ trademark in Brazil.
Despite the provisional nature of the injunction, Coffee++ remains resolute, viewing the dispute as part of broader challenges. The company is planning international expansion, with participation in trade fairs in Dubai and Paris scheduled for 2026, but faces what it describes as "an attempt at elimination by one of the largest corporations in the world."
Nestle has not provided an immediate response to requests for comment regarding the court's decision.
