Discarded donkeys and delicate children's hearts

On TV the most horrifying images can be seen on a daily basis, violence and aggression alr also commonly seen in games. However, there are quite strict rules to ensure that the delicate child's soul does is not confronted with the rough realities of life.

Ever since 2016 “Donkey Sanctuary” has been broadcasting a commercial about the suffering and poor living conditions of donkeys. Viewer meets 'Monu', a worker donkey with a fractured leg, that nevertheless has to carry a heavy load uphill.

This spring a complaint was submitted to the Advertising Code Committee. The children of the complainant were completely upset when they were confronted with the horrible images. He claims the commercial is emotionally blackmailing viewers to raise funds. The commercial is against good taste, and young children should not see it.

The board agrees with this. The images are so intense and shocking that they are not suitable for children. The commercial is banned from being broadcast before 8pm. (Source image: Donkey sanctuary TV commercial -YouTube).

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?