Dutch Advertising Code Social Media

Companies reserve an increasingly bigger portion of their marketing budget for Social Media campaigns. The disadvantage of Social Media is that users do not always know who the message is from. For this reason the new Advertising Code for Social Media January 1, 2014 came into force. Its alleged purpose is to increase transparency in Social Media. This is possible by clearly indicating what the relationship is between the advertiser and the person spreading the message.

For example if someone claims something and is sponsored for this this should be indicated. Hashtags may be used for this, for example. Furthermore, the advertiser has to make certain that the image that is given of a product is not misleading. Not a redundancy as the recent complaint about taxi service Uber illustrates. Uber is an American alternative for a taxi service, that enables consumers and drivers to connect via an app. A strikingly large number of positive tweets on Uber came from famous tv personalities. When a complaint was filed it turned out that these famous people received a discount of some sort at the launch of the company, however, irrespective of whether or not they would send a tweet on Uber. A case of unclear advertising. The advertiser is recommended to no longer use ads in this way. Using a hashtag to indicate the relationship could have instantly removed any doubt.

social-media



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?