Advertising: parody of hamsters and broiler chickens

Campaigns from Wakker Dier (an animal rights organization from the Netherlands) are always highly criticized. More often than not the complainant is not the company that is being criticized, but the “innocent” consumer. Prior to the hamster weeks at Albert Heijn, a new campaign is started in which two hamsters speak with a cripple broiler chicken. (To explain, Albert Heijn is the largest super market chain in the Netherlands. Hamsters are being used as mascots for bargain weeks.) A complaint was filed against this commercial.

The complainant claims that the campaign is too negative for Albert Heijn and therefore contrary to good taste and morals. It is commonly known that the Advertising Code Commission is very liberal when it comes to good taste and morals. In a way anything is allowed, as long as it is not contrary to the truth, public interest, or unnecessarily damaging.

Research from the University of Wageningen has proved in 2011 that of all live stock, broiler chickens have the worst life. It is also not contrary to the Advertising Code to mention a supermarket by name. In 2013 the ACC had already indicated in other complaints that Wakker Dier is free to ventilate her opinion. The parody with hamsters not excepted. It is allowed to use advertising properties as long as there is no confusion. The complaint was therefore rejected.

advertising-law



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?