Archive for the ‘Brands’ Category
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
In a novel promotion, Dr Pepper recently launched a Facebook app which gave consumers the chance to win £1,000 – if they allowed Dr Pepper to “hi-jack” their status updates. Dr Pepper, in line with their “what’s the worst that could happen” strapline, would use the app to post amusing embarrassing statements, which would appear as if they had been made by the entrants.
However the promotion went wrong when a 14-year-old girl’s status was updated with a reference to a hardcore pornography film, causing an outrage. Now Coca-Cola are reportedly considering moving their account from the advertising agency responsible for the promotion.
This shows the importance, when dealing with a novel promotion mechanic, of ensuring the promotion is carefully reviewed before it is run – not just for legal compliance, but also to establish what’s the worst that could happen?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: advertising, Brands, Food & drink, Social Media
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Food & drink | No Comments »
Monday, July 19th, 2010
We recently commented on government plans to persuade food manufacturers to fund its Change4Life campaign in return for less red tape.
Now there are signs that the food industry is going to get even more respite. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is going to be part of the government’s review of “arms length” agencies that is due to take place this autumn.
The FSA has been subject to much criticism from the food industry in recent years – particularly for it’s lobbying for mandatory traffic light labelling and restrictions on TV ads for foods high in salt, sugar and fat.
Many of those in the industry are of the view that the food industry is responsible enough to look after itself and consumers are big enough to make their own choices about what is and what is not good for them. But is the fiscal deficit really a good reason to abandon the body which when it comes to food is charged with protecting public health and public safety?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: advertising, Food Advertisng, FSA
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Friday, July 16th, 2010
MPs, including David Cameron, roundly condemned tributes left on a Facebook group page dedicated to the gunman Raoul Moat and asked for the group, which also criticises the police, to be taken down. Whilst the offending page has now been taken down by its creator, Facebook themselves declined to do so on the grounds it encouraged public debate. They do have a system in place to address complaints about specific offensive material.
The E-Commerce Directive creates certain protections from liability for illegal material that appears on websites, although these protections have certain exemptions. This includes where the website is put on notice of unlawful material, at which point the ‘host’ must act expeditiously to remove it.
It is arguable whether Facebook’s approach brings it strictly within the protection offered by the Directive. But is it more important for Facebook to be seen to be promoting freedom of speech, even when it could be distasteful?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, E-Commerce, Facebook, Freedom of Speach
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 13th, 2010
The BBC has discovered that a number of high profile retail companies may be operating refund policies which are in breach of the Distance Selling Regulations. Online retailers are required to offer a refund of delivery charges for goods bought online, as well as the price of the goods themselves, when the goods are rejected and returned within 7 days of delivery. However the BBC found that a number of online retailers were not offering refunds of the delivery charges.
The Distance Selling Regulations were introduced in 2000, following EU legislation on consumer rights. They are designed to protect the rights of consumers who buy goods online, and therefore do not have a chance to inspect the goods in the shop before buying them.
Although the sums involved are individually small, this could mean an administrative headache for businesses forced to address numerous claims for a refund. It could also result in Trading Standards getting involved. Under the Enterprise Act, they have wide-ranging powers to stop breaches of consumer law, no matter how small.
Consumers are not always aware of their rights – however it is important that businesses do keep up to date with consumer rights, as stories like this can result in bad publicity, and may even prompt legal action.
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Consumer Rights, Distance Selling, Retail
Posted in Brands | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
Mr Paul Barrett has been sentenced to a £3,000 fine, plus ordered to do 250 hours of community service, for committing the offence of shill bidding, after becoming the first person to be convicted of the practice on eBay earlier this year. This occurs when a seller bids on their own item, under another account name (or ‘sock puppet’) in order to jack up the price. Shill bidding is reportedly a widespread problem on eBay.
Mr Barrett had faced a maximum fine of up to £50,000, or jail time. He pleaded guilty after an investigation by North Yorkshire Trading Standards. He stated that he was not aware he was committing a crime.
Though the prosecution is to be commended, the size of the penalty, combined with the admission by the authorities that shill bidding is difficult to prosecute, means that without more action being taken, this conviction alone is unlikely to deter future shill bidders.
So do you think that chasing internet crime is a good use of Trading Standards meagre resources – or should they be concentrating on the real risks to consumers like sale of dangerous toys or flammable furnishing?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Ebay, Shill Bidding, trading standards
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
Apple’s iPhone 4, which was only launched last month, has already resulted in the first lawsuit being filed against the company in the United States.
The suit claims that Apple knew that the antenna design of the iPhone 4 caused reception problems, but ‘wilfully, falsely, and knowingly misrepresented material facts relating to the character and quality of the iPhone 4 units.’ It also states Apple failed to use due care by failing to issue a voluntary recall, or at the least waiving the 10% restocking fee for returned iPhone 4s.
If it becomes a successful ‘class action’ suit, Apple would also have to pay damages to anyone else affected by the alleged defects. This case illustrates how quickly a product launch can damage a brand if design defects are discovered. The more high profile the product, the more extensive will be the consumer testing so due diligence is critical to ensure that new products are fit for the marketplace.
So once you ve done your testing and your due diligence is in place – is it ok to be like the CEO of BP and stand by your Brand – or do you bow to the inevitable and accept that whatever happens – the customer is always right?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Apple, Brands, iPhone 4
Posted in Brands | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
So, alcohol survived the emergency budget. However, many fear that this is a small rest bite before the storm that is sure to come once the Government has overhauled the Licensing Act 2003 as its attempts to tackle the binge drinking culture in our country.
Whilst we wait to see what happens MPs north of the border have voted through the ground-breaking Alcohol Bill which could result in drink promotions banned full stop, an ability to raise the age for buying alcohol, and “social responsibility fees” for retailers who choose to sell alcohol.
Whilst it seems unfathomable that alcohol will ever stop being a big part of British culture, who could have predicted a near universal ban on smoking in public venues across the EU. When will the shackles on the sale of alcohol stop tightening? Will it stop at prominent health warnings on packaging being mandatory or will a far more draconian hand be dealt to the industry?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Emergency Budget, Food & drink, licensing
Posted in Brands, Food & drink, Licensing | No Comments »
Friday, June 18th, 2010
Ambush marketing is a ubiquitous feature of any major sporting event, and it’s certainly got FIFA cross at the 2010 World Cup, after orange mini-dress-sporting football fans were ejected from a World Cup match.
The women are accused of contravening the Merchandise Marks Act by abusing a trade mark. However, the difficulty in this case is that no mark of the company is visible on the dresses and it is therefore hard to see exactly what trade mark has been used.
The case demonstrates that organisations such as FIFA take ambush marketing extremely seriously and will crack down hard where they see examples of it. However it also illustrates that, no matter how draconian the legislation or the enforcement of it, ambush marketers will always be one step ahead.
One thing is certain: during the 2012 London Olympics, ambush marketers will find new ways to advertise their brand without paying hefty sponsorship fees. So, let the games begin!
Posted by Nick McDonald
0115 976 6198
nmcdonald@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: ambush marketing, Brands, Intellectual Property, world cup
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Intellectual Property | 1 Comment »
Thursday, June 17th, 2010
In the High Court recently, the Telegraph Media Group Limited successfully defended a claim of defamation made by Dr Sarah Thornton, the author of Seven Days in the Art World. The Telegraph successfully argued that the words complained of in its review of the book were not capable of being defamatory.
The judge recognised that any definition of “defamatory” must incorporate some qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims. He preferred the following definition:
“the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him, or has a tendency so to do”.
This interpretation provides defendants with another weapon in their armoury. Plus in an increasingly pro-publisher environment, coupled with the prospect of claimants not being able to recover success fees and ATE insurance premiums from defendants, it may make potential claimants think twice before commencing an action.
Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Commercial Litigation, defamation claims, ip
Posted in Brands, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property | No Comments »
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Last week we posted that Mars and The FA were considering legal action against Nestlé .
This week a study by Nielsen has revealed that Nestle are not the only ones taking advantage of “ambush marketing” during the lead up to the World Cup. The likes of Nike and Carlsberg appear to got the upper hand over their bitter rivals but its not all bad news. Nielsen also found that FIFA partner Coca-Cola was found to have had five times the level of mentions around the World Cup than Pepsi did.
With the raft of brands that are currently and will continue to engage in ambush marketing, is it time for sponsors to start taking advantage of their alignment to the World Cup by being more creative, since “owning” the tournament is clearly not enough?
Would money be better spent on savvy marketing strategies rather than on potentially fruitless attempts to try and go after arguably more creative (ambush) marketeers?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, ambush marketing, Brands, marketing, world cup
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Monday, June 7th, 2010
Mars, the FA’s official sponsor, is considering taking legal action against Nestlé’s latest advertising campaign for Kit Kat for “passing themselves off” as being associated with the England football team. This is particularly interesting since Mars ran a very similar campaign 4 years ago.
With major sporting events, “ambush marketing” can be rife with advertisers other than official sponsors keen to piggyback on the popularity of the event without expressly associating themselves with it.
Although sporting associations often publish guidelines as to what references they will permit, which prohibitions are actually enforceable is a question of law. There is obviously a line which must not be crossed. However Nestle say they have taken advice, and feel that the campaign is permissible.
If the law doesn’t protect the rights which official sponsors have paid for, whats the point in paying ? – or maybe we are all “fair game” when it comes to making money for football?…
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, Brands, marketing, world cup
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 2 Comments »
Monday, May 24th, 2010
At 10.10pm on Channel 4 this Monday, the UK will see its first ever TV advert aimed at providing women with advice about abortion.
Abortion has been legal in the UK for more than 40 years, but advertising rules still restrict commercial providers from advertising their services. Though clearly the advert will be highly controversial, Marie Stopes say they have taken legal advice and have been given permission to air the advert, as they are a “non-commercial organisation.” Such organisations, including the Government, are permitted to advertise “pregnancy advisory services.”
Similar, the ASA have said that non-commercial providers of post-conception advice services have long been permitted to run such advertisements. Any advert that is broadcast has to comply with all the relevant rules in their Advertising Code. However, the ASA cannot act on objections that viewers might have about the service being advertised at all – they can only act on complaints, after broadcast, that the advert has breached its codes, for instance on its actual content, or inappropriate scheduling.
Nevertheless, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is considering making a challenge to the legality of the advertisement. As the ASA have set out the limits of their involvement, it will be interesting to see what other route SPUC try to pursue to prevent such advertisements – potentially arguments about human rights, including the right to life and the right to free speech, may be involved.
From a legal perspective, this shows the importance of seeking advice before embarking on an advertising campaign, because Marie Stopes are now able to state that they have taken such advice ahead of any controversy which might be brewing. It shows the limits of the ASA’s remit, even in highly controversial cases – but also that these limits do not prevent offended groups from seeking to take other forms of legal action.
advertisement will ask women “are you late?”, and will direct those facing an unplanned pregnancy to Marie Stopes’ helpline. It is anticipated that the advertisement will cause uproar amongst pro-life campaigners.
This may be Legal Honest and Truthful – but is it Decent?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, ASA, media
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Monday, April 26th, 2010
As some politicians are “firing up their Quattros” for one of the most finely balanced of recent election campaigns every stray vote will count.
We are all likely to find ourselves receiving more and more promotional material. So much so that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has felt it necessary to remind voters that although it regulates nearly all forms of advertising – it does not regulate election advertising.
Adverts that are designed to persuade voters in a local, national or international election referendum are not covered by the Advertising Code.
Does this represent a true example of protecting our human rights to free speech or does it give politicians a right to free unregulated publicity to say whatever they want – at whatever price to win votes and power?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, ASA, Brands, election advertising
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
In March this year, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that there would be a 90% reduction in the recoverability of success fees in relation to defamation claims. The plans were also in line with the recommendations laid out by Lord Justice Jackson in his report published back in January.
Publishers welcomed the move but the oncoming election has led to the reforms being derailed. A number of MPs have also openly opposed the reforms because the proposals would not adequately protect the “little guy” who sues the publisher. Does this mean these same MPs disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Jackson report? It is only a matter of time before defendants are given greater protection against liability to pay success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums in defamation cases, and publishers will feel that not passing this legislation is an opportunity missed.
Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Commercial Litigation, defamation claims, ip, jackson review
Posted in Brands, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property | No Comments »
Monday, April 12th, 2010
Two weeks ago, we reported on the uncensored reposting of live tweets on the Conservative’s “Cash Gordon” website. Now it seems that Twitter posts have put a Labour candidate into hot water.
Amongst other controversial posts, Stuart MacLennan reportedly described the elderly as “coffin dodgers”. He has now been dropped as the Labour nomination for the seat in Moray.
One interesting point is that the Labour Party have said that Mr MacLennan’s tweets were in fact posted a year ago, when Mr MacLennan was still a student. Nevertheless they are still available to be found and reported, and can still be used against him. As a side note, from a legal perspective, material posted online is “published” each time it is downloaded to view – not just when it is first posted. This means that potentially defamatory material (including material which has been “cached”) can be unearthed years after it is posted, and the maker of the statement can be sued. This rule is however currently under review, and may change soon.
Do you think this incident will make students more careful about what they post online, in case it is used against them in the future?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, marketing, media
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Public Sector | No Comments »
Friday, April 9th, 2010
Do you own trade marks or brands comprising two letters or a single character? Frustrated that you’ve not been able to register your brand as a domain name in the UK? Well, read on.
Nominet, which runs the register for .uk domain names, which total around eight million, has announced plans to make available those domain names which comprise two letters or a single character (think AA, BA) as well as other reserved names within the second level domains it controls (including .co.uk and .org.uk). Previously these domains were not available due to technical reasons, unless they had been adopted prior to Nominet’s establishment in 1996.
Nominet estimates that around 2,000 such domains would become available and these would first be offered to relevant trade mark owners during an initial “sunrise” period. Prior to the release, Nominet has invited interested parties to offer their views on the release. A summary of responses received to date are published on Nominet’s website. The responses to date seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the release of two-letter domains, but there has been a more cautious response to the release of single character domains – largely because it is perceived that there is less scope for legitimate use of such domains.
The consultation is open until 8 June 2010, and so if you are a stakeholder – maybe your organisation is well known by a two-letter acronym – you can respond to Nominet here.
The release of these domains is certainly a positive step. However, there have to be the correct safeguards in place to protect the interests of legitimate rights owners, and to avoid abusive registrations. This means that Nominet’s dispute resolution service is likely to see an increase in use once these domains become available.
Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Intellectual Property, Nominet
Posted in Brands, Intellectual Property | No Comments »
Friday, March 26th, 2010
This week the Conservative Party launched the cash-gordon.com website, aimed at highlighting the Labour Party’s funding links to Charlie Whelan’s Unite union.
Unfortunately, basic technical errors and the inclusion of a live Twitter feed, led to the site being bombarded with abusive messages and colourful language.
Publishers, including webhosts and hosts of forum boards, can be held liable for the statements they publish, including liability in defamation.
In practice, once webhosts are notified by an aggrieved party that they are, unbeknownst to them, hosting alleged defamatory content, the content is removed.
However, for a high profile website with a live feed such as this one, it would be all too easy to have material widely disseminated before the publisher is even aware of it. By blindly republishing tweets, the Conservative Party has left itself open to such complaints.
Another new media tactic used by the website encourages site users to bombard Charlie Whelan with tweets. This could constitute harassment, for which the Conservative Party could potentially end up liable.
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, Brands, media
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 1 Comment »
Friday, March 26th, 2010
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) have decided to delay yet again the decision on whether or not to establish the controversial .XXX domain name suffix for adult sites. This issue has now been debated for nearly a decade and it is time that ICANN makes the right decision and establishes the right to sell XXX domain names.
ICANN had previously accepted a request from a domain name registry to be permitted to sell .XXX domain names but subsequently changed its mind after very considerable pressure from a number of conservative groups. Given the very nature of the internet and the fact that it is the most prolific “provider” of adult material surely it is some what bizarre that ICANN should continue to get embroiled in any moral argument or judgement.
In fact to establish the .XXX domain name may well help those so inclined easily navigate their way to these sites, and equally help parents easily identify adult sites so that they can keep their children away. However, others argue that it will be seen as legitimising porn sites. The debate will continue but we can expect a decision in June.
Posted by Declan Cushley
0121 237 3991
dcushley@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: Brands, Domain, ICANN, Intellectual Property
Posted in Brands, Intellectual Property | No Comments »
Friday, March 19th, 2010
This week saw the announcement of several changes to the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) codes for broadcast and non-broadcast media after a lengthy consultation with industry bodies, Government and advertising agencies.
One of the changes is proving rather controversial. This is the new Code that allows the charity sector to air comparative advertisements on television and radio that compare one charity with another.
Under the Code, charities will be able to compare the work they do with other charities as well compare the way donations are spent.
The change comes at a time when donations are in a major decline as consumers continue to cut back following the recession.
The Governments view is that the charities sector should not been be seen as a “special category” and should be able to launch comparative advertisements as long as they do not break the rules on comparative advertising.
The change brings charities evermore into the commercial arena as they fight to get consumers’ pounds from their pockets. It will be interesting to see whether charities pay careful regard to the Code and do not for example denigrate their competitors. Or, whether there will be an influx of complaints made that comparisons are being made that are misleading consumers.
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, Brands, charity advertising, Committee of Advertising Practice
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Charities | No Comments »
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
The Advertising Standards Authority can require that adverts deemed to be misleading, unfair or offensive, are not to be repeated. But with the expansion of digital media, a noticeable gap in the ASA’s jurisdiction has emerged – the ASA only adjudicates on complaints relating to paid-for advertising.
Now this gap is to be plugged. The Advertising Association has recommended that the ASA’s remit be extended to cover marketing communications on companies’ own websites. It means that website owners will now need to review their own websites’ content to ensure that they can prove that they comply with the CAP codes.
Key provisions from the Code include that:
- marketers must hold evidence to substantiate their claims
- marketers should ensure that prices are clear and match the products illustrated
- special care should be taken when products intended for adults may fall into the hands of children
- claims comparing your products to your competitor’s products are subject to strict conditions.
If the recommendation is adopted, these changes could come into effect from September 2010.
With advertising in digital media becoming increasingly dominant in the marketplace, this was an obvious decision to make. Our immediate thoughts are: will businesses seek to use this to their advantage by complaining about their competitor’s websites? And what implications will this have on the use of user-generated content in marketing?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, ASA, digital media, online advertising, Regulatory
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
