Sexist commercial of Suit Supply?

Suit Supply is a company that manufactures and sells reasonably priced quality suits for men. It has also built itself a reputation, in the Netherlands, for its controversial commercials. Also this year, many complaints were filed before the Advisertising Code Committee (RCC), after Suit Supply launched their Toy Boys campaign

It was claimed that the commercial is contrary to good taste and decency. On the picture, you can see a dark skinned woman, wearing a topless corset and two miniscule men (in suits) sliding of her breasts. Complainants call this image “simply disgusting”, “racist” and “sexist”, claiming that it teaches children that the woman is an inferior sexual object.

Well, the Netherlands is not a very strict country, so Suit Supply defends its campaign, on the grounds that the picture has a clear humoristic and absurd character. The Code of Conduct Commission agrees. Using a (scantily dressed) woman in commercials is not impermissible per se. It is obvious that this is a staged image. Furthermore, it is not clear how the men ended up her breasts, what they are doing and how they experience it. The pose of the woman is independent of the men on her body. The absurd character of the image excludes a realistic situation of abuse of the female body. Therefore, the complaints are being rejected. (Source image; outdoor campaign Suit Supply)

 

advertising-law



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?