Genial Holding LTDA. et al. v. Brasil Plural Securities, LLC et al.

Nature of the filing

This document is plaintiffs’ discovery letter concerning three requests for production. A request for production is a demand for documents or information in a lawsuit. The letter argues that defendants should provide materials relevant to ownership of the PLURAL and BRASIL PLURAL marks, the likelihood that consumers may be confused, and plaintiffs’ damages. The text does not contain a ruling requiring defendants to produce the requested materials.

Disputed requests

Plaintiffs sought broader documents under Requests for Production 30 and 58. Request 30 concerned defendants’ strategies, discussions, negotiations, and decisions about selling or licensing shares, interests, or assets of the corporate defendants, including intellectual-property assets. Request 58 concerned valuations of the corporate defendants after October 30, 2018, including valuations discussing the marks. Plaintiffs argued that these materials could show how defendants understood and valued the marks and whether the October 2018 Share Purchase Agreement transferred them. Defendants agreed only to produce documents specifically concerning the marks and valuations that expressly referred to them.

Plaintiffs also challenged defendants’ refusal to produce information under Request 50 about clients referred by plaintiffs, services defendants performed for those clients, and related revenues or profits. Plaintiffs argued that the documents could identify witnesses concerning the parties’ affiliation and consumer perceptions, and could help establish damages from allegedly unauthorized use of the marks. Defendants argued that the information was irrelevant and burdensome. Plaintiffs asked the court to order production within 14 days.

What the court ordered

The court’s order states that defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ discovery letter was due December 9, 2025. The court did not invite replies. The text does not state that the court granted or denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production. It also did not decide trademark ownership, likelihood of confusion, or damages. The order is therefore a procedural discovery order rather than a decision on the underlying trademark dispute.