Posts Tagged ‘advertising’

Citroën ad banned by watchdog for causing epileptic seizures

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

The Advertising Standards Authority has today banned an advert by French car maker Citroën for its DS4 model after it triggered seizures in a number of viewers who suffer from photo-sensitive epilepsy.

The TV advert which was seen on Sky, Watch, ITV, Quest and UK Gold featured scenes in rapid succession culminating in 304 alternating black and white ‘YES’ words appearing across a screen.

Nina Best, a specialist in advertising law at Browne Jacobson commented:

“Adverts must not include visual effects that are likely to affect adversely members of the audience with photo-sensitive epilepsy. Advertisers must remember that the rules are not only about the words or images included in their advertisement, but also the way they appear is subject to constraints. It is not only what you say that can hurt but the way you say it.”

Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.

Nina Best

Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Opportunities for street trading and advertising during the Olympics

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

This week, the application process opened for permits to advertise, or trade in the street, in the vicinity of the London Olympics. The application process is open until 29 February 2012.

Specific Regulations, which prohibit unlicensed advertising or street trading, have now been finalised. The law is wide reaching and can catch, for instance, persons given branded clothing to wear, and pre-existing advertising in the defined areas. The law is also strict – officers have extensive powers to enforce it, and directors may find themselves personally liable for their company’s actions.

It is fair to say that the wide scope of the laws in place during the London Olympics may catch some businesses by surprise. It is therefore important to plan your marketing and trading activities early, so you can still seek advice and/or acquire permits.

Further information can also be viewed at Olympics – law and practice.

Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.

Oliver Sweeney

Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Product Placement Hits Coronation Street

Friday, November 18th, 2011

On 14 November 2011 Coronation Street became the first UK prime time show to feature product placement advertising, following a relaxation of TV product placement rules last February.

Contrary to the predicted deluge of brands to be thrust onto viewers’ screens, this first product placement in the ITV soap takes the rather mundane form of a Nationwide cash machine appearing in Dev Alahan’s corner shop. There will also be a branded swing-board outside the store.

Product placement undoubtedly offers a potentially lucrative income generation model, with Ofcom predicting that the industry could be worth up to £30m a year. Despite some who worry that product placement is essentially subliminal advertising, and may be a challenge to the traditions of British broadcasting, the safe guards such as a small letter ‘p’ shown on screen during the programme credits will be a clear warning to viewers.

At least the residents of Coronation Street can rest easy, knowing their money is no longer being held in a fictional bank.

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)

Ban on selling cigarettes from vending machines

Monday, October 10th, 2011

On 1 October 2011 a ban came in to force on the sale of tobacco products from vending machines in England. Displays of tobacco advertisements on vending machines are also banned.

A person found guilty of selling tobacco from a vending machine will face prosecution, and if convicted in the Magistrates court could be ordered to pay a fine of up to £2,500.

The ban is intended to reduce smoking among young people. This will particularly affect 11-15 year olds, who apparently regularly use vending machines as their source of cigarettes.

There is clear public support for a ban on the sale of tobacco from vending machines. However, the tobacco industry argues that vending machines could be modified to require tokens or ID cards, rather than having an outright ban. Nevertheless, you may be in the 65% of people who are in favour of a ban? ( according to a YouGov survey commissioned by ASH).

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Interflora and Marks & Spencer keyword battle

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its preliminary ruling on the the questions referred to it by MR Justice Arnold concerning the use of a competitor’s trade mark as a keyword.

The ECJ ruled (amongst other points):

  • a trade mark proprietor can prevent a competitor from using a keyword identical to their own trade mark to advertise goods or services identical to those covered by their trade mark where such use is liable to have an adverse effect on the functions of the trade mark: the ‘indicating origin’ function of a trade mark will be adversely affected if the advertising displayed as a result of the keyword does not enable an internet user to ascertain whether the goods or services advertised originate from the trade mark proprietor or a third party.
  • the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation is entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword corresponding to that trade mark where the competitor takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the trade mark or where the advertising is detrimental to that distinctive character.

The first point is unsurprising – its what we’ve been seeing in the national court rulings. However, it will be interesting to see how broadly the second point is interpreted by the English courts.

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Heineken avoid censorship

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

The advertising watchdog has today (21 September 2011) ruled that a Heineken ad showing a smartly dressed man wandering through a party, performing various tricks and being admired by women, did not breach advertising rules on social responsibility and alcohol.

Complainants challenged the ad on the basis that it implied alcohol could enhance personal qualities and talents, contribute to popularity, confidence and social and sexual success and make a social occasion successful. However, the ASA said that the Heineken advert was not in breach because the man’s skills and popularity are not linked with him drinking alcohol.

In this case, the ASA has clearly concluded that the fact the man was drinking Heineken was incidental to his popularity and skills and not due to the fact that he was drinking alcohol. This ruling shows how fine the line can be between a breach and what the ASA deems acceptable. I anticipate that Heineken’s marketing team has a good grasp of the advertising rules as the bottle of Heineken is out of shot for the majority of the ad, and it is this that subtly disconnects the skilful, popular man from the alcoholic beverage. Well done Heineken!

Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.

Nina Best

Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

If you get the timing right, the gods will be with you

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

Phones 4 U thought that Thursday 21 April was just the same as every other Thursday. However, it was Holy Thursday. On this day, Phones 4 U placed an ad in the Metro newspaper which depicted a cartoon of Jesus, grinning, winking, and giving the thumbs up under the text ‘Miraculous deals on Samsung Galaxy Android phones’.

The Christian community were not impressed, and 98 people complained that the ad was disrespectful to Christians, especially as it was run during the Easter period. The ASA today (7 Sep 2011) found that the ad breached rule 4.1 of the CAP Code as it caused harm and offence.

The ASA accepts that marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching the Code. However, they urge marketeers to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material. Companies should not be deterred from being edgy and tongue in cheek with their marketing efforts, but they must make sure they take all external factors, including timing, into consideration before launching a new campaign. Otherwise, the risk of vexing a large proportion of your target audience is extremely high.

Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.

Nina Best

Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Pretty woman or digital manipulation?

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

The cosmetic giant L’Oreal has been ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority to stop using pictures of Julia Roberts and model Christy Turlington upholding a complaint that the images were overly airbrushed.

The complaint came from Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, a long standing campaigner against unrealistic images of women in advertising. Swinson is claiming the decision as a victory stating that “this ban sends a powerful message to advertisers – let’s get back to reality”, and rightly so. It is perfectly legitimate for advertisers to show their products in the best possible light, however they should not cross the line of becoming misleading.

The ASA has shown its hand in this case and arguably cast doubt on the products in question. Advertisers need to be careful to show the true effects of their products or risk consumers questioning whether they are as good as they first appear.

Dmitrije Sirovica

Dmitrije Sirovica
0115 976 6243
dsirovica@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

New complaints website to be set up for child sexualisation

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

A new website to help parents complain about the commercialisation and sexualisation of children is to be set up and is among the recommendations of a review carried out by Reg Bailey of the Mothers’ Union.

The proposed changes in the report include ideas to make it easier to block adult content on mobile phones and the internet by being able to buy computers, devices or internet services with adult content already blocked. It also suggests a ban on raunchy billboard posters near schools and more control of advertising aimed at youngsters. Under the review more risqué music videos would also be moved to later time slots and be restricted to older teenagers.

This review has also coincided with the release of a new code of practice drawn up by the British Retail Consortium which provides guidelines and restrictions on inappropriate children’s clothing.

How far this will go to alleviate parents’ worries about the increasingly sexualised culture we live in, remains to be seen.

Laura Richards

Laura Richards
0115 976 6249
lrichards@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Fighting over flowers…

Friday, March 25th, 2011

M&S has purchased ‘interflora’ as an adword (a Google search for Interflora now displays an advertising link to M&S’ flower delivery service). Does M&S’ use of the word infringe Interflora’s trade mark rights?

The Advocate General has now provided an opinion in the case of Interflora v Marks & Spencer stating that a trade mark owner can forbid the use of a trade mark in such circumstances where the advertising link:

  • is liable to lead some members of the public to believe that the competitor is a member of the trade mark owner’s commercial network; and/or
  • displays or mentions the trade mark and the advertiser thereby attempts to benefit from its power of attraction, reputation or prestige

Surprisingly the Advocate General believes that the advertisement may confuse searchers in to believing that M&S is part of the Interflora network. If the court’s hypothetical searchers are so easily confused then adword purchasers will need to select their adverts very carefully.

Alex Kynoch

Alex Kynoch
0115 976 6528
akynoch@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.3/10 (4 votes cast)

Tesco scores a PR own goal in price war

Friday, March 25th, 2011

In a response to Asda’s Price Guarantee promotion, Tesco’s PriceCheck scheme promised to refund shoppers double the difference, if they could show that the products they bought at Tesco were on sale for less in Asda. However Tesco has now changed the offer to limit refund vouchers to a maximum of £20 per shop.

The reason? It seems that some customers were making money out of Tesco by specifically seeking out products which a competitor had on promotion. One consumer claimed to have made £600 from the promotion already.

Tescos said that fewer than one in 5,000 customers had been awarded vouchers over £20. However Asda took the opportunity make this statement:

“If you claim to be the cheapest, call me old-fashioned, but it helps to really be the cheapest.”
The moral of the story? Make sure you think carefully and get your terms and conditions right BEFORE you go to the market with a promotion!

Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.

Oliver Sweeney

Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)

2012 Olympics: consultation on proposed advertising and trading regulations

Friday, March 18th, 2011

Last week, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments published a joint consultation on their proposed regulations for restricting advertising and trading in open places during the 2012 Games.

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (“Act”) provides for regulations to be created in relation to the control of advertising and trading to help prevent ambush marketing and preserve the exclusive association rights of the 2012 Games sponsors.

The consultation seeks views on the scope of the proposed restrictions to advertising and trading in open places, the areas (zones) to which the regulations will apply and the duration of the regulations. It is hoped that the restrictions and associated penalties will be clear and reasonable, enabling individuals and businesses to manage their activities appropriately and be confident that they are not in breach of the regulations.

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)

Kingspan v Rockwool – Use caution when playing with fire!

Friday, March 11th, 2011

The High Court recently ruled that a series of advertisements were misleading and infringed the Claimant’s trade marks.

The Defendant, Rockwool, manufactures insulation panels used in construction. They carried out an advertising campaign, comparing their product with that of their competitor, Kingspan, using fire tests to demonstrate the combustibility of the goods. Kingspan argued that the claims made about their product were false and misleading.

Kitchen J held that Rockwool infringed Kingspan’s trademarks under Article 5(1)(a) and (2) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 9(1)(a) and (c) of the CTM Regulation, by taking unfair advantage of their trade mark and discrediting it, and that , Rockwool had not met the condition, under the Comparative Advertising Directive, of objectively comparing the products. Another claim for malicious falsehood was dismissed.

The decision should serve as a warning to businesses to take greater caution in ruthless advertising campaigns involving competitor’s products!

Posted by Declan Cushley, who specialises in intellectual property dispute resolution involving infringement and validity of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright, as well as reputation management and domain name disputes.

Declan Cushley

Declan Cushley
0121 237 3993
dcushley@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.7/10 (3 votes cast)

Did you spot it?……. Didn’t think so

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Nescafe has today made history by being the first company to take advantage of the new rules on product placement on UK TV. However considering all the hype that surrounded the new rules, the first ever paid-for placement of a product on UK TV appears to have gone unnoticed.

The company paid £100,000 for its Dolce Gusto coffee machine to be placed on ITV’s This Morning’s kitchen over the next 3 months. However the machine was only visible for seconds at a time, sitting idly behind Phil Vickery and would not have been noticed unless it was actively sought out.

This is a nervous start by advertisers, and we may have to wait for shows such as the X-Factor to test the waters and see how far the new rules will go. Nevertheless, although Nescafe’s Dolce Gusto went largely unnoticed this morning the press it has since received as the first to take advantage of the new rules make it worth while. Bet you spot it tomorrow!

Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.

Nina Best

Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Park your product here

Monday, February 14th, 2011
Product placement logo

Product placement logo

Just before Christmas 2010 Ofcom confirmed that as of 28 February 2011, product placement will be permitted in UK TV programmes. Unlike our more relaxed US cousins, as part of the new rules a logo must appear for 3 seconds at the start, the end, and after any advertising breaks within programmes containing product placement.

Ofcom today revealed what that logo will look like. The monochrome double P will be used to signal to viewers that the programme they are about to see contains product placement.

The use of the logo is intended to combat “surreptitious” advertising. In practice this cautious approach may be an added bonus for advertisers who will get two bites at the cherry. As well as being able to place products within programmes, advertisers have the added benefit that broadcasters must tell the viewer that their product is there, drawing the viewer’s attention to what they may otherwise not have noticed at all.

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Countdown to the Bribery Act

Friday, January 14th, 2011

With only three months to go before the Bribery Act 2010 comes into force in April the Government has decided that it wants the Act to be reviewed. Unfortunately for UK businesses this does not mean that they can breathe a sigh of relief as an official from the SFO has already said that the review will be ‘limited’, despite headlines in the press.

The review follows escalating fears that the Act is so burdensome it could affect UK economic growth, and that UK business chiefs could end up in court after inadvertently committing an offence with a potential maximum sentence of 10 years.

However the Government needs to be cautious. Watering down the Act now would ruin the reputation the UK has earned itself, as the least corrupt country in the world, by implementing the Act in the first place. The Government should concentrate on issuing coherent, useful guidance for companies and ensuring that authorities deal with potential breaches of the Act in a sensible and proportionate way.

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Coming soon to a television near you

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Ofcom has confirmed that from 28 February 2011, paid for references for products and services will be permitted in UK TV programmes.

The new rules can be found in a revised section nine to the broadcast code and includes restrictions on the types of product that can be placed, the types of programmes in which products can be placed, and limits on the way in which products can be seen and referred to in programmes.

The industry is suggesting that real changes are unlikely to be seen on TV until 2012, but viewers should see an audience awareness campaign on channels intending to use product placement early in the new year.

Now that television receivers that allow users to record, pause and rewind our favourite programs are common place, expect to see our favourite programs infiltrated by our favourite brands. Time will tell whether this will be a ‘product invasion’ or whether advertisers manage to strike the right balance and ensure that the placement matches the content of where it is placed.

If you would like to find out more about these changes you can read our bulletin on product placement at www.brownejacobson.com

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Santa clause does not exist!!!

Friday, December 17th, 2010

The ASA has recently reminded us that Santa Claus most definitely does not exist.

Or rather, as those keen eyed readers will notice from the title, that a Santa clause does not exist, as part of the Advertising Codes. The ASA has reported that every year at the time of glad tidings, mince pies, carols, and general merriment it receives a sack full of complaints from angry parents. For example, last year it received 40 complaints against an Asda TV advert depicting parents buying and hiding presents. Why would they do this when Santa will be bringing them on Christmas Eve …… the children might ask?

The ASA did not investigate. Nevertheless, it accepts that the Codes place a particular emphasis on protecting children from harm and distress.

Accordingly this year, to save us from tears, the ASA had reminded advertisers to ‘tread carefully’ when putting their Christmas adverts together.

Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.

Fiona Carter

Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)

It really does taste better

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

An ad campaign by Carling has been given the ASA’s seal of approval.

Heineken UK challenged whether the claims “NEW TASTE LOCK CAN” and “Scientifically proven to lock in great taste” were misleading as they could not be substantiated. However, Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (MCBC) answered the challenge by providing evidence regarding the technology that made the cans new and details of extensive tests conducted that showed the maximum iron content found in the new cans compared to the old cans had reduced, and was at or below the level at which trained in-house taste testers could identify a metallic taste.

MCBC understand the importance of ensuring that before any claims are made it is imperative that statistically significant evidence is gathered, just in case you are presented with a challenge. Much to Heineken’s dismay, MCBC will now get better press from this ad campaign than they would have done had the challenge not been made in the first place !

Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.

Nina Best

Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Comment must be “honest” – it doesn’t have to be “fair”

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

In a significant development to defamation law, the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph has clarified the defence of fair comment (also renaming it “honest comment”).

It is not necessary for a publisher to have identified the matters on which comment is based in sufficient detail to enable a reader to judge for themselves whether the comment is well founded. Instead, an honest comment  ”must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based” so that “the reader can understand what the comment is about and the commentator can, if challenged, explain…”. However, a defendant is not permitted to get support from facts that were not referred to by the comment, or facts that the defendant did not know when he made his comment.

This clarification allies the defence more closely with the realities of publication on the internet, in editorials and in blogs, and makes a little progress towards the more robust reform position currently proposed in the Defamation Bill. The ruling will please publishers and proponents of free speech – but on the other hand, it might make the judicial process for persons defamed in unbalanced attacks more difficult.

Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.

Oliver Sweeney

Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)