Satirical advertisements - Mary’s immaculate conception

For years Antonio Federici has been making notorious and satirical advertisements. Just like last year this year’s advertisement has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom.

This time the ad features a pregnant nun, in her last trimester, eating delicious ice cream. Antonio Federici claimed that the way in which the ice cream was produced was immaculately conceived. In a way it is the holy mission of the company to make the ice cream, which would explain the use of religious elements in the advertisement.

Apart from this, the company wanted to question the manner in which the catholic Church views certain social matters. Freedom of speech was supposed to prevail. The ASA, however, judged differently. The use of a pregnant nun and the reference to the immaculate conception will most likely be seen as an insult towards Catholics, according to the ASA. The use of these images is therefore offensive. Religion and parody therefore continue to not go well together.

 

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?