The thesis considers the scope of trade mark protection against the context of paid search marketing. The hypothesis is that ‘fair and efficient competition’ is at the heart of the balance between interested parties and between trade mark protection and between free speech. This introduces the concept of a 'virtuous cycle' in the application of trade mark law. this thesis suggests that fair and efficient competition should be the ultimate purpose of trade mark law. The concept can be furthered by protecting pro-competitive trade mark functions: the intra trade mark information function and the inter-trademark differentiation function. Thus, only where third party use third party use is likely to harm the information and differentiation functions of owners' trade marks user could be liable. In a democratic society, there is anadditional consideration:thebalance between trade mark protection and free speech. Where third parties use trade marks in non-commercial contexts, likelihood of confusion or dilution should be the result ofactual malice or calculated falsehood. These two considerations are tested against the real world context of paid search marketing. Based on the protection of pro-competitive trade mark functions and speech restriction standards, and the relevance of actual and direct context and circumstances of paid search marketing, advertisers can be liable for their use of trade marks even when they do not include trade marks in their advertisements. Search engines, however,are not responsible for their use ‘under current practices,’ whether or not trade marks are included in advertisements. The thesis supports that trade mark law and jurisprudence should transform the cycle that starts with the balance of interests and end with fair and efficient competition into a virtuous spiralwhere one feeds the other; the two are inextricably linked.

Over the years there have been major developments in corporate identity, which included the integration of the concept of the logo branding systems of both companies and products; extending thereby at the level of legal definitions or in the application forms, colors and uses of logos, as well as the design of the mark. Since then, the brand began to be considered one of the main intangible assets, providing the basis for a sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, the legal protection of this asset becomes indispensable. Considering the growth and importance of intangible assets |brand|, this study aimed to evaluate the profile of the trademark filing consolidated two Brazilian companies and national prominence in the food sector, including analysis of trademark protection since its evolution and extension the visual identity to the comparative study of management strategies relating to these distinctive signs. From data collected in the National Institute of Industrial Property for the years 2000 to 2013, exploratory-descriptive research was conducted, analyzing the evolution of marcarios records and protection of trademarks by the companies Sadia and Perdigao SA. According to the records, it was found that from the beginning to the present day, Perdigao brand and had a few minor alterations and identified records of change in mixed company brand in the years 1958, 1980 and 2005 On the other hand, for Sadia records modernization of its visual identification in the years 1960, 1993 and 2011, characterized by the association consumers make the brand together the stylized S and the image of the mascot were observed. The strategies of brands of both companies are extensions: line (creating different flavors and different features in various products); brand (using their names in different product categories, including meat products, pizza, snacks and pasta) and multi (insertion of brands introduced in the same product category market, such as margarines and Deline Qualy). Furthermore, firms make use of licensing strategies, for example: |Monica| (Sadia) and |The Smurfs| (Perdigao). As for the number of records was verified to occur in six different classes: 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 43, however, with greater expressiveness in class 29, comprising 436 records of Sadia and Perdigao 162. However, 80% of the records of Sadia are active and 20% of applications filed, the total of 731 On the other hand, the 196 brands Perdigao 71% refers to the active. So mark protection is very important for both companies, evidenced by the high numbers of records over the years. Moreover, the construction of each brand was strategic element for both companies to consolidate the market, communicating its value proposition to consumers. It is noteworthy also that Sadia and Perdigao, during its existence, used strategies similar brands, however with regard to launching products, Sadia is still higher than Perdigao. / Ao longo dos anos houve grande evolução na identidade coorporativa, o que compreendeu a integração do conceito de logotipo aos sistemas de identidade visual tanto das empresas quanto de produtos; estendendo-se, desta forma, em nível de definições legais seja nas formas de aplicação, cores e usos de logotipos, como também ao design da marca. A partir de então, a marca começou a ser considerada um dos principais ativos intangíveis, proporcionando a base de uma vantagem competitiva sustentável. Logo, a proteção legal desse ativo torna-se indispensável. Considerando o crescimento e a importância do ativo intangível marca , este trabalho teve como objetivo avaliar o perfil do depósito marcário de duas empresas brasileiras consolidadas e de destaque nacional no setor alimentício, incluindo a análise de proteção das marcas desde a sua evolução e extensão da identidade visual até o estudo comparativo de estratégias administrativas referentes a estes sinais distintivos. A partir de dados coletados no Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, correspondentes aos anos de 2000 a 2013, foi realizada pesquisa exploratório-descritiva, com análise da evolução dos registros marcario e da proteção de marcas pelas empresas Sadia S.A. e Perdigão. De acordo com os registros, foi constatado que do início até os dias atuais, a marca Perdigão teve poucas e discretas alterações, sendo identificados registros de modificação na marca mista da empresa nos anos de 1958, 1980 e 2005. Por outro lado, para a marca Sadia foram observados registros de modernização de sua identificação visual nos anos de 1960, 1993 e 2011, caracterizados pela associação que os consumidores fazem à marca conjuntamente ao S estilizado e a imagem da mascote. As estratégias de marcas de ambas as empresas se constituem de extensões: de linha (criando diversos sabores e características diferentes em vários produtos); de marca (utilizando seus nomes em diferentes categorias de produtos, incluindo derivados de carne, pizzas, salgadinhos e massas) e multimarcas (inserção no mercado de marcas introduzidas na mesma categoria de produto, como exemplo margarinas Deline e Qualy). Ademais, as empresas se utilizam de estratégias de licenciamento, por exemplo: Turma da Mônica (Sadia) e os Smurfs (Perdigão). Quanto ao número de registros foi verificada a ocorrência em seis classes diferentes: 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 43, no entanto, com maior expressividade na classe 29, compreendendo 436 registros da Sadia e 162 da Perdigão. Contudo, 80% dos registros da Sadia encontram-se ativos e 20% de pedidos arquivados, do total de 731. Por outro lado, das 196 marcas da Perdigão 71% referem-se às ativas. Portanto, a proteção marcaria representa grande relevância para as duas empresas, constatada pelos elevados números de registros ao longo dos anos. Além disso, a construção da marca de cada uma foi elemento estratégico para ambas as empresas se consolidarem no mercado, comunicando sua proposta de valor aos consumidores. Ressalta-se, ainda, que a Sadia e a Perdigão, no decorrer de sua existência, utilizaram estratégias de marcas semelhantes, contudo no que diz respeito ao lançamento de produtos, a Sadia ainda é superior à Perdigão.