Facebook posts Ab Fab commercial

The advertising commission received a complaint about a liked message on the Facebook account of a grand café. The ad shows Patsy and Edina, who are apparently famous for being in a TV show called “Absolutely Fabulous”. The ladies claim that:“If anyone tells you it’s too early to drink wine… unfriend them. You don’t need that kind of negativity in your life!”.The plaintiff states that this message is in contravention with paragraph 14 of the Advertising Code. It encourages people to start drinking early and pretends that the risks of addiction are something to laugh at.

The defendant claims this is not his intention at all. The message is merely meant as a joke and was shared by accident. The Advertising Commission agrees with this. The message was clearly a joke and if anything ridicules excessive alcohol consumption.
However, liking messages is a form of advertising. The message should have contained a disclaimer “No 18, No alcohol” or something of the kind. A disclaimer is obligated, also for use on the internet, which includes liked messages on Facebook. The message is therefore in contravention with paragraph 33 of the Advertising Code and the advertiser was requested on to advertise in this way any longer.

social-media



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?