Sapph advertising campaign, misogynistic and discriminatory?

In our last newsletter we showcased a campaign by Suit Supply, that was borderline inadmissible. The Advertising Code Committee was not given a reprieve because a new case, this time against lingerie company Sapph followed almost immediately.  

In the picture of the ad a Black man (in boxer shorts) is seen making a kicking motion towards the rear end of a Caucasian woman in lingerie. The accompanying text says "LETS KICK SOME ASS" and "K1 boxer Remy Bonjaski Sapph for Men”. Bonjaski is in fact the new face of Sapph.
The filed complaint stated that this campaign was aggressive and would motivate men to kick women in the behind. Furthermore, because the man is Black, the ad also insulted men of color.
The Advertising Code Committee treated this case in a fashion we have come to expect, that is with great precaution. The Committee is generally very careful in banning ads, since determining exactly what is contrary to morality and unnecessarily offensive is highly subjective.
The Committee declared that when viewing the ad it was clear that it was a staged photograph. Especially the posture of the woman clearly indicated that there is no element of violence involved.
An appeal was made with the Advertising Commission, but the Commission had the same opinion. The campaign is not misogynistic and still in conformity with the standards of decency.
 

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?