Vlogging – free botox treatment - Dutch Social Media Code

Mascha Feoktistova is a well-known vlogger (her Beautygloss vlog has over half a million followers). She publishes a video about her Botox treatment on YouTube. Firstly claiming that she wants to treat herself to a present, but at the end of the video stating the following: “Jani, of all people, if I would do it, I would do it with you, he is simply the best, docters.inc is very professional…in the end I got the treatment for free, very sweet but it was agreed upon beforehand” .

The video is only available on YouTube and underneath the link to the Video it is stated that Mascha received the treatment for free. A complaint is filed. The video is said to be an infraction of the RSM (The Dutch Social Media Code).

The RCC states that extensive description of the treatment accompanied by a laudatory remark like “he is simply the best of the best”, upholds the conclusion that the video is to be seen as a recommendation. Via this vlog-post a large audience is reached, so it should be seen as an advertisement. According to article 3 of the RSM a vlogger has to state if any form of compensation is received. Mascha has complied with that rule. Both in the Video and in the text underneath the video it is explicitly stated that she received the treatment for free. The complaint is therefore denied. Image: Youtube - Beautygloss

social-media



Latest news
Spido: Use of Google Adword infringes competitor’s trademark
Jägermeister’s Hubertus deer vs silhouette head of a Hubertus deer
Marks & Spencer The Perfect match
Wendy’s Local David versus Global Goliath
Ferrari bonnet unregistered design?
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?