Trademark news

Suitsupply campaign in conflict with good taste?

In the new billboard campaign of Suitsupply we see a male in suit putting his hand on the chest of another male, while another one depicts two kissing males. The reactions provoked by this campaign bring to mind the world-famous advertising campaigns of Benetton with Oliviero Toscani. Suitsupply puts a statement on its website underlining this. 'The Suitsupply spring ad campaign celebrates individuality and love. At Suitsupply, everyone can find their perfect fit, in clothing and in life, and we mean everyone. This is true to our brand and our culture. We are proud of who and what we stand for." It would not surprise me if this campaign wins some prizes worldwide. » advertising-law

Picnic parody: compensation Max- advertising and online exposure

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

Free-riding on World Championship Football

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

Jesus and Maria advertisements violating the public morals

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

Naughty commercials Radio 538 – campaign immoral and lack of good taste?

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
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?