Dentsu Web Private Watch campaign- Plagiary or heavily inspired

In the Netherlands the ADCN lamps and the Cannes Lions are the important awards for the creativity of an advertising agency. Often there is a striking similarity between the winning campaign and earlier campaigns. This problem is not limited to the Netherlands. This year the Malaysian awards came under fire when many of its award winning campaigns seemed very similar to already existing campaigns.

The advertisement of the Indonesian WWF (which won 26 bronze and 3 silver awards) seemed very similar to the work of 21 year old design student Tom Anders Watkins (published April 2014). Also the advertisement for Web Private Watch seemed suspiciously similar to The Architect of Swedish photographer Erik Johansson. The idea of an inside-out house is the same, the man just wears ladies underwear to point out the dangers of online use and that nothing stays private. This did not stay without consequences. The advertisements were disqualified for plagiary. Source and images: Bron: Joe la Pompe/Adformatie

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?