Picnic parody: compensation Max- advertising and online exposure

Picnic, a chain of grocery stores, has put himself in the spotlight in one strike with parody of a competitor’s commercial starring popular formula 1 driver Max Verstappen. As hoped and desired, the campaign went viral. The fact that this infringes upon Max's portrait rights only increased the effect. For a normal ad campaign to achieve similar impact the costs would be ten-fold. Because Max has a convertible popularity, a lawsuit followed in which he demanded 450,000 euros compensation.

In the lawsuit, reports were submitted to substantiate which compensation Max would normally receive for appearing in a commercial. It is unclear whether a calculation was made how much this campaign has saved Picnic. The court ultimately determines the compensation at € 150,000. In my opinion a pittance, given the purpose of Picnic to put their brand on the map in one go. The argument that the Picnic cannot be blamed for the campaign going viral does not hold much water. In fact, that is precisely what it was intended to do. Hopefully parties will appeal, allowing this factor to be included. It cannot not be that intentionally infringing behavior is rewarded in the Netherlands.


Latest news
Online infringement and court competence
Published promotional video lethal to Community Design Petsbelle scratching post
Brexit update - transition period until 31 December 2020
Ban on wave shaped shoe display
Ion Maiden becomes Ion Fury


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?
Follow Abcor