ASN & the insulted neck-tie wearer

When consumers are bothered by the content of advertising, they can file a complaint with “the Dutch Advertising Code Committee”. This is easy and free of charge. Fortunately, complaints are first assessed by the committee’s chairman, so most foolish complaints are quickly rejected.The new ASN commercial ‘habitual animal’ received a lot of praise. The commercial discusses banking from a very different perspective and is executed simply brilliantly. For years, ‘habitual animal’ has been doing its banking business with 'the same tie'. When he discovers that 'tie' makes money on things that are bad for nature and animals, he switches to ASN.

It’s a brilliant animation, but apparently not for everyone because a complaint is filed. According to the complainer, the commercial stereotypes tie wearers, being a form of discrimination. The chairman is quickly finished with this. The reference in the commercial to 'the tie' is not stereotyping men with a tie, but a reference to competing banks. Tie stands for banks that make money from animal suffering and things that are bad for the environment. The commercial offers an alternative bank and is not aimed against men with a tie. There is no question of discrimination, the complaint is rightly rejected. (Source image; ASN  commercial)

advertising-law



Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?