You can choose your image but not your regulator
The Advertising Standards Authority is becoming increasingly active in regulating fashion ads.
Marc Jacobs, internet retailer Drop Dead, and H&M are just the latest fashion companies to be subject to adjudications following complaints concerning the contents of their advertisments.
Marc Jacobs’ “Oh Lola!” ad perfume was determined to sexualise a child, as the model (actress Dakota Fanning) was styled to look younger than her 17 years and the choice of clothing, pose and position of the oversized perfume bottle (in her lap) drew attention to her sexuality.
Drop Dead and H&M were called in as objections were made that the models in the adverts appeared underweight and could encourage unhealthy eating habits in young habits and children.
The complaint against Drop Dead was upheld as the ASA considered that the model was “very slim”, her “hip, rib and collar bones were highly visible” and the picture had been posed in ways that made her body appear thinner.
In contrast H&M successfully contested the complaint against them, drawing attention to the ad being typical of those for fashion products and that the model did not seen too thin for her frame or unhealthy or emaciated. Unsurprisingly it helped that the ASA thought that most viewers would see the design and price of the coat not the body image being presented.
Both Marc Jacobs and Drop Dead had drawn attention to the targets of their campaigns and the likely viewer. For example, the Marc Jacobs’ ad had appeared in highly stylised fashion magazines. However, this did not find favour with the ASA.
Marc Jacobs and Drop Dead were instructed not to produce the ads in the same form again, while H&M acknowledged that they had a responsibility as an advertiser and would take the ASA’s comments into consideration.
The portrayal of negative body images and the sexualisation of children remain high profile and controversial issues in the fashion industry, with both Jack Wills and Prada also having been called in about similar concerns. The message is clear - fashion companies need to consider carefully the image being used in their advertisements to avoidl the costs of a campaign being for nothing.
Tiffany charges to Christian Louboutin’s aid
As Fashion Focus reported earlier this year, the fashion industry took a step back when the New York District Court found that the red outsole trade mark was invalid as in order to maintain competition in the fashion industry.
Christian Louboutin has appealed the Court’s finding, which would effectively destroy its trade mark and impact its brand protection. Now Tiffany has also made submissions to the US Court of Appeal.
As in the UK, where a third party has an interest in the legal impact of a decision, it is possible for the third party to interplead in the action.
For decades Tiffany has used a particular shade of blue in its packaging, marketing and as a part of its corporate identity, to the extent that the shade has been classified as Tiffany Blue. Tiffany is concerned that the District Court’s decision will mean that in the fashion industry a single colour can never be a trade mark, even if it has acquired distinctiveness. Result - its Tiffany Blue trade mark will also be rendered invalid!
Tiffany’s submission is that the Appeal Court should reaffirm that there is no legal basis for such a broad rejection and the Courts should return to considering each trade mark on a case by case basis.
In addition to Tiffany, the International Trade Mark Association (INTA) has also filed submissions requesting that the District Court’s decision is overturned.
While the case continues for Christian Louboutin diamonds are not only a girl’s best friend.
