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
Compra BV- domainnames, apps and website design
Mecy 2 bv - Gangster energy drinks
Martin de Waal
AIRMADE air solutions- aircondition and climat control apparatus
Piet Vijverberg Nursery - nursery specialisted in Phalaenopsis and Dracaena
Knol Power - vlogger- influencer