Picnic, a chain of grocery stores, has put himself in the spotlight in one strike with parody of a competitor’s commercial starring popular formula 1 driver Max Verstappen. As hoped and desired, the campaign went viral. The fact that this infringes upon Max's portrait rights only increased the effect. For a normal ad campaign to achieve similar impact the costs would be ten-fold. Because Max has a convertible popularity, a lawsuit followed in which he demanded 450,000 euros compensation. »advertising-law
Can you free-ride on the wave of publicity surrounding the World Cup as a company? In principle you can, as long as this is not in conflict with any statutory regulations and no third party’s rights are infringed upon. But, taking into account the large financial interests, FIFA is doing everything possible to keep the goodwill of the World Cup exclusively for its sponsors. That is why FIFA has again registered a huge number of new trademarks (including RUSSIA 2018) and designs. Better not use these (nor variations on them) and do not offer tickets. »advertising-law
Advertising is legally protected by the constitutional right, freedom of speech. However, can this freedom be limited if certain advertising is harmful or insulting to certain religious groups? This question arises regarding the campaign of the Lithuanian clothing company, Sekmadienis. On the posters there is a man accompanied with the text: “Jesus, what a trousers!”, another poster shows a woman with a bead and the text “Maria, what a dress!” and on the last one Jesus and Maria together with the text: “Jesus Maria, what are you wearing!” »advertising-law
Dutch radio-station “Radio 538” has a reputation for making controversial campaigns, resulting in many complaints before the RCC (The Dutch Advertising Code) after the launch of every summer campaign. It is remarkable that the Netherlands seem to have become more prudish lately. See, for example, the Shameless campaign of Suit supply, featuring a lady drinking coffee while being “taken” on the kitchen counter (this campaign was allowed after all). The new 538 commercial features a young woman, dressed only in a top, sitting in front of a blower-fan with her legs opened towards the viewer. A domestic cat is placed in front of her on the couch, blocking the view of the model’s genitals. According to the complaint, the image of the woman creates an association with pornography. The billboard is placed in plain sight at bus-stops. Therefore the campaign is allegedly immoral and lacking good taste. »advertising-law
In the new Jumbo commercials Max Verstappen is racing from client to client in his Formula 1 car delivering online orders. In less than a day after the launch of this campaign, the online supermarket, Picnic presents a parody. A Max look-alike is driving around at an easy pace making his deliveries. After a short pit stop (where the groceries are being delivered), Max continues his trip trough the Dutch city Amersfoort. »advertising-law
MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE.
Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark.
Infringement or not?