When a name becomes a brand and a brand meets a celebrity

Author: Luiza Rey

In the previous articles, we explored how voices can be cloned, misappropriated, and legally contested in the age of generative AI.

This time, the dispute is not about sound, but about something even more fundamental in intellectual property law: a name.

And more precisely, what happens when a registered trademark collides with a globally famous artistic identity.

The Brazilian pharmaceutical company Farmoquímica, owner of the registered trademark “Anitta” in the pharmaceutical class for many years, sought to expand its brand portfolio.

The plan was straightforward from a classic trademark perspective:

extend the existing brand to new product categories, specifically cosmetics, including items such as lipsticks, creams, and skincare products, under the same name.

From the company’s standpoint, the logic was familiar.

If a mark is validly registered and well established in one class, expansion to adjacent markets may, in principle, be commercially and legally viable.

However, the plan did not move forward.

According to publicly available information, the Brazilian Trademark Office, INPI, rejected Farmoquímica’s application to register “Anitta” in the cosmetics class.

The reasoning was not based on the pharmaceutical mark’s invalidity, nor on bad faith at the time of its original registration. Instead, the decision focused on consumer perception today.

According to INPI, allowing the use of “Anitta” for cosmetics could generate confusion as to the origin of the products, creating a misleading association with the artistic name of the singer Anitta.

In other words, even though the pharmaceutical trademark predates the singer’s rise to fame, the current notoriety of the artistic name changes legal analysis.

This case has been cited as an illustrative example of the enhanced protection afforded to well-known or notorious names, even outside their original field of activity.

Under Brazilian trademark law in certain circumstances, highly renowned marks or names may benefit from extended protection. As in many jurisdictions, marks that are widely recognized by the public may enjoy protection beyond their registered classes. The rationale is consumer protection: avoiding confusion, undue association, or parasitic advantage.

In practice, the decision acknowledges that today the word “Anitta” no longer functions merely as a neutral term in the market. It immediately evokes a specific individual, with a strong personal brand, commercial endorsements, and a global presence in fashion, music, and beauty.

Allowing a cosmetics line under the same name could reasonably lead consumers to believe there is an endorsement, collaboration, or licensing relationship, even if none exists.

What makes this case particularly interesting is that chronology alone was not decisive.

Farmoquímica’s trademark was registered long before the singer became a household name. From a purely formal standpoint, the company did nothing irregular.

Yet trademark law is not static. It operates in the real market, not in a vacuum.

Distinctiveness, reputation, and public perception evolve, and legal protection adapts accordingly.

This is where legal correctness and perceived fairness may diverge.

Farmoquímica has appealed the decision, arguing that its prior rights should allow portfolio expansion and that the coexistence of the marks would not necessarily confuse consumers.

Even without intent, using a famous artistic name in a new market can be seen as capturing reputational value created by someone else — what trademark law often refers to as parasitic advantage.

The outcome of this appeal will be closely watched, as it may clarify:

• how far the protection of a well-known artistic name extends

• whether prior trademark owners can be effectively “blocked” from expanding into new markets

• how INPI balances seniority against notoriety

We will follow the case and share the final outcome once it is decided.

Why this decision matters:

This decision will not be just relevant for celebrities or the entertainment industry. It directly affects companies with long-standing trademarks that were registered before social media, influencer culture, and personal branding transformed names into global commercial assets.

Any business planning brand extension must now assess not only trademark seniority, but also whether a name has become culturally “occupied” by a public figure.

In comparative terms, in the United States, the discussion would likely be framed through trademark dilution and false endorsement doctrines, especially if the use suggested sponsorship or affiliation.

In the European Union, the analysis would likely rely more heavily on unfair competition and personality rights, particularly where a famous name functions as an identity marker beyond its registered classes, with the specific legal approach varying by Member State.

This dispute raises a question that goes beyond Anitta, cosmetics, or pharmaceuticals.

Is it fair that a company that registered a mark in good faith, before the existence of a globally famous artist, can later be prevented from expanding its business because that name acquired a new cultural meaning?

Or, put differently:

Should trademark law reward chronological priority at all costs, or should it adapt to cultural reality when a name becomes inseparable from a public figure?

And if the law protects consumers from confusion, who should bear the economic cost of that protection?

There is no easy answer. But cases like Anitta vs. Anitta show that, in intellectual property law, names are not just words.

They are signals of identity, trust, and economic value.

And once a name becomes a brand in the public's imagination, the law tends to follow.

Together with recent disputes over AI-generated voices and synthetic performances, this case shows that identity — whether expressed through voice, image, or name — is becoming the most contested asset in modern IP law.

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Comparative references are general in nature, and their practical application varies by jurisdiction and specific facts. We do not represent the parties mentioned and rely on publicly available information. Any administrative decision referred to may be subject to appeal and judicial review.

Por: Luiza Rey