Meat is for men, vegetables are for cows

Humor is not equally appreciated by everyone. After the riot with Jan Kooijman, sauce maker Remia is back on the game with its BBQ sauce advertisement. On the label of “Black Jack Smokey BBQ sauce” is stated: "For real men only" and "Real men, real meat, real sauce ... Meat is for men, vegetables for cows!" A complaint is made on grounds of gender discrimination and offensiveness to vegetarians and vegans. The statement is therefore offensive and in violation of Articles 2 and 4 of the dutch media code, so it must be prohibited.

The complaint is denied, both at the Advertising Code Committee and at the Board of Appeal.
There is no question of discrimination. Remia clearly winks at the stereotyping that real men want to eat meat. It is therefore considered a parody, one that no reasonable thinking person takes seriously. That idea that cows can be taken as a reference to vegetarians is part of the joke. The Committee understands that they may or may not appreciate the joke, but that does not mean that the advertisement is unacceptably offensive to people who do not want to eat meat. The complaint is rejected, fortunately there is still some room for absurdist advertising, keeping the advertising blocks sufferable.

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?