Max Verstappen parody, € 350.000,- claim? - advertising and portait rights

In the new Jumbo commercials Max Verstappen is racing from client to client in his Formula 1 car delivering online orders. In less than a day after the launch of this campaign, the online supermarket, Picnic presents a parody. A Max look-alike is driving around at an easy pace making his deliveries. After a short pit stop (where the groceries are being delivered), Max continues his trip trough the Dutch city Amersfoort.

According to the Picnic management it’s merely a comedy.
However, the management of Max Verstappen is not amused , stating that the commercial is an infringement of the image rights of Max. It is irrelevant that the character is obviously just a look/a-like and not the man himself. Max Verstappen has a redeemable popularity (his name, autograph and portrait are registered trademarks), so his management claims a compensation of no less than € 350,000.00. According to Dutch standards this claim is very high, so it is not very likely that the claim will be fully granted. However, it is clear is that the image of Max cannot be treated lightly.

advertising-law



Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?