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
Until a few years ago design law was of minor importance in the Benelux. Those days are over now. Over the last few years multiple decisions have been issued based on registered EU designs, like in this Honda case. Honda has protected the shape of its HONDA MSX125 as a registered EU-design. A Belgian distributor introduces a similar design on the market and the case is taken to court. »design-law
It is common knowledge that fame and fortune has its price. So, what about the privacy protection of ordinary people? As a rule, pictures of persons (with the exception of ordered portraits) can be used freely to a certain extent. The Supreme Court in the Netherlands has previously ruled that also ordinary people are entitled to protection, if they are being depicted for commercial purposes, as can be concluded from its decision in the IT’s Disco dancer case. The audience might think that the person in question authorized the use of the picture and/or supports the campaign. This protection is often in conflict with the corporate freedom of speech. The question which of the two prevails is being considered in the Schiphol Picture case. »copyright
As early as in 1999, Diesel registered it´s D-logo for clothing in the European Union. When Sprinter Megacentros files its own D-logo in the European Union, Diesel opposes. Initially Diesel’s claim is denied, based on the assumption that the average consumer would not recognize the character D in the logo and see it as a mere trivial shape. Therefore the trademarks are visually, phonetically and conceptually dissimilar. »trademark-registration
For the new Magnum Ice-cream campaign, Unilever files the trademark RELEASE THE BEAST. The trademark is claimed for ice cream and ice lollies. Monster opposes on the basis of its word trademark UNLEASH THE BEAST, registered in 2011 for non-alcoholic beverages. The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) denies the opposition because the goods are not considered similar. Monster successfully appeals the decision. »trademarks
MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE.
Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark.
Infringement or not?