Posts Tagged ‘advertising’

ASA gets hot and bothered over latest Pam Anderson ad

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has today banned an advert featuring actress and model Pamela Anderson for ‘depicting women as sexual objects to be lusted after’.

The advertising watchdog upheld complaints about the advert for Crazy Domains.co.uk, a domain name registrar and web hosting provider owned by Dreamscape Networks Ltd, because it ‘gave the impression that [the man] viewed his female colleagues as sexual objects to be lusted after’.

The advert must have seriously crossed a line. Traditionally, the ASA has been quite liberal in its views concerning complaints about advertisements that are alleged to be overly sexualised. It is therefore surprising that the ASA now appears to be taking a rather conservative view in relation to an ad featuring Pamela Anderson. There’s a good chance that the negative adjudication will do little more than fluff the feathers of what appears to now be a “TV hit series” in the promoter’s own words as awareness of the campaign is raised.

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
nina.best@brownejacobson.com

Google pulls global trigger on trademark ad use policy!

Monday, March 25th, 2013

Google has amended its policy enabling advertisers to choose any trademark term to trigger their advert onto consumers’ screens. In 2008 advertisers needed the owner’s permission to use trademark keywords but in 2010 Google amended its policy allowing retailers unconnected with a trademarked brand to use the trademark in AdWords ads provided they had a loose connection, such as selling the trademarked brands’ products.

This latest change might have followed Google’s success in the Australian High Court where it was found not to have misled or deceived the public by publishing ads in which advertisers used rivals’ names.

The policy states Google will still “investigate and may restrict the use of a trademark within ad text”, but what security does that offer to trademark owners if consumers have already been led to the advert?

This will not stop trademark owners enforcing their rights against advertisers, who should seek advice before choosing keywords and creating ads, especially if they’re intending on using other brands’ trademarks.

Posted by Paula Dumbill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property, particularly trade marks and copyright, advising in particular on IP exploitation and collaboration agreements and trade mark portfolio management.

Paula Dumbill

Paula Dumbill
0115 976 6059
pdumbill@brownejacobson.com

American Apparel reminded not to sexualise young models

Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint that images on American Apparel’s website were irresponsible and offensive.

The ASA said the model used on the site looked under the age of 16. Whilst it acknowledged that the poses were not overtly sexual, it considered the images could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child. Under the advertising rules such action is considered inappropriate and irresponsible.

This isn’t the first time that American Apparel has been on the receiving end of a negative adjudication by the ASA. Last time, the advertising watchdog banned the retailer’s ad campaign after brandishing it “pornographic, exploitative ..and inappropriately sexualis[ing] young women”. Given the sensitive nature of the advertisements, the retailer needs to tread carefully going forward: The ASA has close links with the Office of Fair Trading, a body with bigger teeth than itself. It may decide to refer American Apparel’s behaviour to the Regulator who has more ammunition in its armoury to tackle the arguably irresponsible advertising.

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

Advertising watchdog shoots down Call of Duty ad

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against an advert for video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. The advert contained scenes of major world cities under military assault with buildings ablaze, soldiers loading guns and tanks driving down streets.

Viewers complained that the advert, which was broadcast at 2:30pm during a Premier League football match, was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children might have been watching. The ASA ruled that the games’ publishers, Activision, must not broadcast the ad again before 7:30pm.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has received significant attention following mass killers Anders Brevik and Mohammed Merah’s actions being linked to playing the violent video game. So it is difficult to see how the watchdog could have reached any other ruling than to ban its broadcast before 7.30pm. It simply highlights just how greatly the ASA is influenced by current media and public opinion.

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

Watchdog issues Nike red card over Rooney tweet

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has today wrapped Nike for tweets that used the official Twitter account of footballer Wayne Rooney to promote its Make it Count campaign. The tweet “My resolution – to start the year as a champion, and finish it as a champion” sat above the hash tag and link “#makeitcount gonike.me/makeitcount”. The ASA found that this message did not clearly identify itself as an endorsement.

This ruling does not mean the end to celebrity endorsement on social media. However, brands will need to become more aware and more creative when it comes to its social media marketing. This ruling, along with the recent Twitter Snickers campaign, shows that the advertising watchdog will not let social media slip through its gloves, so brands need to pay close attention to their social media campaign messages.

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

OFT not so keen on Groupon offers

Friday, March 16th, 2012

MyCityDeal Ltd, trading as Groupon, has been suffering poor publicity following an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The OFT found breaches of consumer protection rules in multiple activities. A damning comment from the OFT stated concerns about Groupon’s “pricing, advertising, refunds, unfair terms, and the diligence of its interactions with merchants”… In other words: “Everything!”

This illustrates the extensive powers the OFT have to require businesses to change the terms on which they deal if in their opinion they are unfair – on pain of court sanctions. This can result in a business having to fundamentally change their operating procedures – plus negative publicity.

Groupon’s rise has been meteoric, but it now needs to take steps to protect its brand. To protect consumer confidence in the brand, Groupon would be well advised to mitigate its potential breaches and implement procedures to ensure that all of its activities are subject to legal compliance checks.

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

Choc Tweet beats heat as ASA deems new practice A-OK

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

A decision by the Advertising Standards Authority is set to open the floodgates for advertisers to use celebrity Twitter accounts as a medium.

Mars’ use of celebrity Tweets to plug the candy bar ‘Snickers’ to the public caused quite a stir. Mars paid celebrities to Tweet several teasers to develop an intriguing narrative, the culmination of which was a picture of the relevant celebrity with a Snickers bar.

The method will stimulate debate amongst advertisers. Although the Snickers Tweets were legal because they used Hashtags to make it clear that they were adverts, were they effective? Many people apparently resented being ambushed by a brand in this way.

Whether you approve or not, it is clear that social media is creating new opportunities for advertisers and new challenges for regulators.

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

Patent rights for social media

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Yahoo!, in a recent meeting with Facebook, has demanded licensing fees for the use of 10-20 of their patents over technologies including advertising, newsfeed privacy controls, social networking and messaging and website personalisation.

Following the recent patent wars in the smartphone and tablet sectors, should their demands not be met by Facebook, veteran Yahoo! would be the first social media entity to pursue major legal action in this area.

Is Yahoo trying to assert itself to regain market standing? Or has the move been triggered by the greatly anticipated public offering of Facebook, estimated to be worth $100 billion?

Either way, other patent holders in the social networking sphere will surely be encouraged to walk through the door that Yahoo! has opened, and the awaited Facebook response is likely to influence future patent actions in social media – watch this space.

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

It’s all about how you couch it….

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned Sofa King’s regional press ad which included the slogan “The Sofa King – Where the Prices are Sofa King Low!” after receiving three complaints.

The ASA held the slogan could be “interpreted as derivative of a particular swear word which consumer research had found to be a word so likely to offend that it should not be used in ads at all, even when it was relevant to the name of a product”. It concluded that it was likely to cause “serious or widespread offence” and that the ad breached the CAP Code.

The Sofa King have defended their use of the slogan stating that they have not received any complaints directly. The general online opinion appears to be that it’s all just a bit of tongue in cheek fun. However, the slogan does suggest a serious swear word so that once a formal complaint was made to the ASA, it had little choice but to ban the slogan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tesco wrapped for misleading bangers ad

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Today, Tesco has been told that its advert for its own brand Butcher’s Choice Sausages must no longer be broadcast in its current form. The ad showed pigs roaming in a field and walking freely in a barn. Complaint was made that this was misleading because it implied that the pigs were reared in an unrestricted environment with access to an outdoor pasture. In fact, the pigs used for the sausages are bred both indoors and outdoors, with movement restricted.

This ad actually only showed the pigs roaming outdoors for 4 seconds, before switching to them in a shed with an open door. In addition, Tesco did not make any claims in relation to how the pigs were reared, for example, ‘free range’. However, the ASA, in upholding the complaint, makes it clear that visuals alone can be misleading. Tesco clearly recognises the increasing demand by consumers for meat that is produced with high animal welfare. However, it is important to remember that actions can speak louder than words, so companies must not forget to ensure that their visual claims are capable of substantiation as well as their written ones.

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

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

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.

src="http://www.law-less-ordinary.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/talk_to_us2.jpg"

alt="" width="106" height="18" />

src="http://www.brownejacobson.com/images/Dmitrije%20Sirovica%20USE%20web.jpg" alt="Dmitrije

Sirovica" width="55" height="55" />

Dmitrije Sirovica
0115 976 6238

href="mailto:dsirovica@brownejacobson.com">dsirovica@brownejacobson.com

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 908 4886
lrichards@brownejacobson.com

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