STJ Affirms the Absence of Unfair Competition by Coco Bambu Against Restaurante Camarões

In a decision denying the appeal filed by Restaurante Camarões, the Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously upheld the ruling that dismissed claims of unfair competition and industrial property infringement allegedly committed by the Coco Bambu restaurant chain.

The litigation originated from a lawsuit brought by Restaurante Camarões, alleging unlawful infringement of its visual identity (trade dress)—specifically the set of exclusive visual and stylistic elements of the establishment, such as layout design, menus, and ambiance—which it claimed were being copied by Coco Bambu, along with the unlawful solicitation of employees. Upon reviewing the record, the trial court dismissed the initial claims.

On appeal, the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Norte (TJRN), by majority vote, reversed the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of Restaurante Camarões. The appellate court found that the similar visual and architectural elements constituted unfair competition, ordering Coco Bambu to pay compensation for material and moral damages. This decision was based on similarities in menu design patterns, dishes offered, employee uniforms, and the overall appearance of the restaurant's physical structure.

However, upon examining the Special Appeal (Recurso Especial) filed by Coco Bambu, the STJ, with Reporting Justice Marco Buzzi presiding, highlighted that although the TJRN ruling noted similarities in architectural styles, menus, dishes, and employee attire, the decision failed to establish the originality of those items or demonstrate how they differed from those used by other competitors operating in the same sector—namely, regional and coastal cuisine.

Likewise, the Reporting Justice further reasoned that while the logos of both chains share a similarity in placing a crustacean above the brand name, they differ in key aspects such as design and color scheme, thereby dispelling potential consumer confusion.

As a result, the Superior Court concluded that no unfair competition had occurred, considering that both brands utilize elements common to the food service industry and operate in different cities and states, serving distinct consumer audiences.

Thus, the ruling represents an important precedent in cases involving trade dress and unfair competition.