Suitsupply campaign in conflict with good taste?

In the new billboard campaign of Suitsupply we see a male in suit putting his hand on the chest of another male, while another one depicts two kissing males. The reactions provoked by this campaign bring to mind the world-famous advertising campaigns of Benetton with Oliviero Toscani. Suitsupply puts a statement on its website underlining this. 'The Suitsupply spring ad campaign celebrates individuality and love. At Suitsupply, everyone can find their perfect fit, in clothing and in life, and we mean everyone. This is true to our brand and our culture. We are proud of who and what we stand for." It would not surprise me if this campaign wins some prizes worldwide.

But of course not everyone is equally pleased with this new campaign. Not only bus stops containing posters of this campaign are vandalized, the campaign is also directly faced with a complaint at the Dutch Advertising Code Committee. It is said to be conflicting with Christian values and common decency. The campaign is said to suggest that men are likely to be kissed by another man when buying a suit. The chairman of the committee wastes no words on this. Depicting homosexuality is not a social issue anymore. Discrimination against sexual preference is not allowed. There is no question of an inadmissible combination of exposure and eroticism. The compliant is rejected.

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?