Max Verstappen still loses to Picnic

As an introduction of the brand Picnic, the company launched a viral parody of the Jumbo commercials featuring Max Verstappen. Celebrities popularity can be monetized. For that reason Max started legal proceedings against this use. Court agreed with Max and sentenced Picnic to total damages of € 150,000.

 

Picnic successfully appealed against this. The Court in review rejected the claim. Reason: it is abundantly clear that this is a look-a-like. Nobody will think this is Max Verstappen or that he supports this. There is a chance that the case will make it to Supreme Court, because a portrait does not necessarily concern the famous person himself. It must be a recognizable representation (so we expect a follow-up).

In addition, according to the Court of Appeal, the use of a look-a-like is not unlawful with regards to Max himself (this may be different for the Jumbo). Reason: Max’s honor is not affected and the statement is not offensive to his good name. His reputation is not at stake. It is clear to everyone that this is parody and no one will think that he actually supports Picnic's services. As a result, the claim is still rejected.

Freedom of expression takes a win this time. For advertisers this opens possibilities to use parody with regards to celebrities.

advertising-law



Latest news
Valid yellow colormark Kärcher
The importance of protecting a logo, WELSON vs WELLUX
Beer drinking toddlers
Self-assembled Kitcar infringes on Ferrari
Picture of own staff in company advertising
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

PURE - MENTOS

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?