Suit Supply’s new campaign “Shameless” indecent and of very poor taste?

Suit Supply’s new campaign “Shameless” caused a lot of commotion. It did not take long before the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority (RCC) was flooded with complaints. The complainants claimed that Suit Supply’s new advertisement was indecent and of very poor taste. The RCC, however, decided that the reference to sexually explicit acts were not of such severity that any moral standard had been breached.  

As far as the alleged unfriendliness towards females is concerned the RCC decided that the way in which both man and woman are depicted does not attest to any lack of respect for the woman.

In Belgium, however, the authorities had a very different opinion. Four pictures had to be removed from the website because they were sexist and used women as sex objects. This case clearly proves that good taste is a matter of opinion, and that moral standards are quite different in the Netherlands.

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?