Diesel Campaign too Offensive

A new Diesel campaign has made some shockwaves in England. The campaign has the credo. “Be Stupid” – “Smart may have the brains, but Stupid has the balls”. As if this statement is not shocking enough, the accompanying posters certainly underline the message.  

One poster shows a woman flashing her breasts in from of a security camera, while on a ladder. The second shows a woman taking a picture of her own genitalia. The English Media Regulator received a tidal wave of complaints in reaction to these posters. What Diesel claimed should have been empowering images of femininity was actually seen by the public as rude and offensive. It would lead to anti-social behavior, especially in children. Despite all of Diesel’s counter claims, which included that it was not only an empowerment of women but also a protest against unbridled camera surveillance, the ads were prohibited.
 

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?