Max Verstappen still loses to Picnic

As an introduction of the brand Picnic, the company launched a viral parody of the Jumbo commercials featuring Max Verstappen. Celebrities popularity can be monetized. For that reason Max started legal proceedings against this use. Court agreed with Max and sentenced Picnic to total damages of € 150,000.

 

Picnic successfully appealed against this. The Court in review rejected the claim. Reason: it is abundantly clear that this is a look-a-like. Nobody will think this is Max Verstappen or that he supports this. There is a chance that the case will make it to Supreme Court, because a portrait does not necessarily concern the famous person himself. It must be a recognizable representation (so we expect a follow-up).

In addition, according to the Court of Appeal, the use of a look-a-like is not unlawful with regards to Max himself (this may be different for the Jumbo). Reason: Max’s honor is not affected and the statement is not offensive to his good name. His reputation is not at stake. It is clear to everyone that this is parody and no one will think that he actually supports Picnic's services. As a result, the claim is still rejected.

Freedom of expression takes a win this time. For advertisers this opens possibilities to use parody with regards to celebrities.

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?