JBS vs. Greenpeace and WAP (Inhibition of environmental and climate protests)

On May 15, 2025, JBS S.A. ("JBS"), a Brazilian multinational company that produces meat and meat products, sued Greenpeace Brazil ("Greenpeace") and World Animal Protection Brazil ("WAP") for trademark infringement and trespassing at its headquarters. On June 9, 2025, Greenpeace filed its defense, stating that the demonstrations were peaceful and part of a legitimate public interest campaign aimed at transparency in production chains in the Amazon. It emphasized that the Greenpeace demonstration at JBS headquarters and the WAP demonstration involving posters and trucks in São Paulo were independent of each other. Greenpeace further pointed out that all material disseminated during the demonstration and online was based on public data, technical reports, and journalistic investigations, serving to disseminate truthful information about how JBS disregards its commitments to public authorities and civil society regarding its contribution to illegal deforestation, forced labor, greenhouse gas emissions, and land grabbing. It highlighted that the demonstrations were carried out within the scope of the legitimate exercise of its institutional purpose, the duty to defend an ecologically balanced environment, and the observance of freedom of expression, the right to criticize, and freedom of thought. Greenpeace argued that the action constitutes an attempt at prior censorship through the instrumentalization of an injunction, and falls under what would be considered a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—the use of the judicial system to intimidate, silence, and financially weaken critical social movements. Greenpeace requested that the action be dismissed in its entirety and that the decision granting JBS a preliminary injunction be reversed. 
 On June 18, 2025, WAP filed its defense, arguing that the lawsuit is an attempt at censorship disguised as a claim for the protection of the plaintiff's trademark and property rights. It stated that it never held demonstrations on the plaintiff's property. It affirmed the informative and opinion-formative role of the campaign launched by the association, which occurred in accordance with the legal and constitutional limits that safeguard freedom of expression and the right to criticize corporate practices regarding socio-environmental responsibility. WAP maintained that JBS's narrative, that the campaigns by Greenpeace and WAP were coordinated and orchestrated conspiratorial action between both defendant organizations, is unfounded, considering that the demonstrations were entirely distinct. WAP explained that the two defendants only shared the intention of informing society about JBS's activities and their relationship to the impacts on animal welfare and the environmental and climate crisis. WAP requested that the lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety, reversing the previous decision that granted the preliminary injunction.
 On August 26, 2025, a judgment of Judge Valdir da Silva Queiroz Junior was issued. The judgment partially upheld JBS's claim, confirming the order that the defendants refrain from carrying out further invasions of the plaintiff's property. Simultaneously, however, the judgment deemed the other allegations unfounded and affirmed the right to freedom of expression. The reasoning for the decision highlighted the following: (i) There exists a duty to preserve and protect the environment for present and future generations, to which follows a need to discourage unsustainable practices. (ii) No offense to the plaintiff's honor or image was established, as the defendants acted within the limits of freedom of expression, basing themselves on facts and public news. Publicizing the plaintiff's activities in the agricultural sector—emphasizing the emission of polluting gases and deforestation resulting from the activities—was also supported by Article 225 of the Constitution, which underscores the commitment made between companies, public authorities, and civil society to adopt measures to reduce pollution and deforestation. (iii) The protests were carried out individually and peacefully. (iv) The right to exclusive use of the trademark is not absolute and must be subject to the exceptions provided for in the Industrial Property Law and to the balance with the constitutional values of freedom of expression.