Digital agency accused of ripping off Surf Life Saving Australia’s IP in ad campaign

What brand wouldn’t be ashamed to be associated with an ad like that

Really!? How petty.

I think it was supposed to be a bit of fun. This seems petty and pointless with the SLSA. It was a simple, quick video put together quickly from what I can gather that was supposed to be comical – come on guys, stop over-reacting and see it for what it is…

Can you truly own the rights to colours? Surely not? If it went to court it would be very interesting to watch.

The trunks are not real lifesaver trunks. The patterns on the hat (are they exactly the same as SLSA issue?) If not then Web Profits might be ok?

Of course a nice gesture to the SLSA would be for them to make a donation, publicly. Perhaps say sorry, publicly.

Move on and everyone’s a winner 🙂

(I hope none of this gets edited “for legal reason’s”.

Did they have a problem with the Telecom “phone call for Mr Nakimura” ads in the 80’s?

Cant find anything else to do with your time SLSA? How about try to save some lives instead..

I agree, this is petty surf life saving Australia.

The surf life savers are a recognizable part of australian culture, not a company brand mark. Get over it!

What-ever.

Assuming any of the posters above work for (or are) clients, how would you feel if your brand was snaffled like this?

Further, if you are a non-profit whose only real asset is your brand, exemplified by those colours, how would you feel about someone snaffling them.

And if the snaffler produced the poop above, how would you feel about that?

Don’t tell the lawyers but Strop’s been wearing a surf-lifesaving cap in The Paul Hogan Show for 40 years…

What’s next? The Blue Haven Pool elephants being sued by Taronga Zoo?

As someone who has been on the receiving end of threats from a certain Australian television network because I dared start a website that had the same number in its name, I think the whole concept of IP ownership is in dire need of a rethink.

Remember Cadbury thinking they owned purple?

“What brand wouldn’t be ashamed to be associated with an ad like that” — Tom

I totally agree with Tom. Plus if they were using Ronald McDonald or KFC’s Colonel Sanders, its the same kind of thing. Except that this is a charity/non-profit organisation!

SLSA has owned the rights to that red and yellow cap for decades. Web Profits is just cheapening their image with this tacky ad.

Petty doesn’t begin to describe how this organisation lords it over people due to the huge amount of cash they raise. They also apparently have a trademark on the word “lifeguard”. No joke.

Is that a surprise to anyone Tim..? Ha!

ouch.

you’d think a company with Web in its name would be a bit savvier than that.

heh heh.. when will people learn to disguide their IP address? come on people!!

What?

They don’t know how to find SLSA’s number?

Do these guys have to whistle in the bog so they know which end to wipe?

They should be glad they didn’t use a Red Cross in the ad – the letters you get then are a little sterner.

Well, I agree with other(s) and I’m not from the same IP address…

It is pathetic of SLSA to make a claim that red/yellow colours or caps are their IP. They’ve been noticably agressive on this over recent weeks and the rest of the world’s lifesaving community see it as faintly ridiculous.

These colours have been universally used by lifeguards for decades. How come SLSA haven’t reacted like this at any other time in the past? If SLSA think they will get some kind of out-of-court settlements by threatening organisations like this, then I’m afraid they will soon come a cropper and probably end up out of pocket.

Best wishes
Graham

I previously worked for SLSA and strongly support their stance on this matter. Sponsors pay a considerable amount to be associated with this brand, and in particular, iconic elements such as the red and yellow cap and flags. The money these sponsors pay help the organisation stay afloat, provide vital lifesaving equipment to surf life saving clubs, to ultimately save lives. This kind of IP infringement dilutes the brand and what it stands for. Just because SLSA is a not for profit organisation, is doesnt mean they cannot have trademarks, which they protect for the benefit of the community.

Too funny Tim … people really need to understand the web and the fact that you can track IP’s!!

Lol good one Tim, I wonder who that could be..

This is narrow minded and typical of SLSA.

I have worked with SLSA both as a supporting not for profit and as a corporate sponsor – (edited under Mumbrella’s comemnt moderation policy) . What is really scary about their power is the fact that more people drown in backyard pools than on the beach – but this never seems to get much attention and people throw money at them as its a more ‘glamorous’ charity to help.

They are not focused on just beach safety anymore – it’s become a marketing channel for promoting their brand and getting ridiculous amounts of money from an unsuspecting public.

(Edited undfer MUmbrella’s comment mdoeration policy).

They really need to be taken off their pedestal.

Worth noting that Cadbury was finally granted trademarks for various shades of purple in October 2009. Quite clearly the red/yellow skull cap is strongly associated with SLSA and the organisation has every right to be concerned at its exploitation – without Web Profits seeking any permission to do so. Perhaps, the bigger question is whether SLSA have in fact formally registered the colours and 4 quadrant cap design as a trademark or have merely relied upon extensive usage to claim ownership.

Re: 10.10am Tuesday update.

So they’re a web agency, who supposedly specialise in SEO, that doesn’t know how to use Google.

Brilliant.

Damn that static IP!

And if it hadn’t been for you pesky Burrowes I would have got away with it.

haha go Web Profits posting team! Have to agree with them though. (not a fan of the subversive tactics however)

SLSA are being petty on this one. SLSA as a whole have become a bureaucratic money hungry machine. They should get on with the grass roots basics and not the ridiculous beast it has become (and I think I am entitled to say this having been involved with SLS since a nipper)

Is it IP, or is it a uniform? I guess then any TVC producer that’s included Policeman, Ambulance Officer or Army character should be expecting a call for breach of copyright too.

Well this story was highly predictable. Especially when Tim commented on yesterday’s story saying “I’ve asked SLSA for their views on the campaign, and am waiting to hear back.” Nothing like provoking the issue!
My 2 cents – ad is a fun idea, poorly executed, and I think the SLSC should lighten up a bit. Given they have been on this colours/IP bandwagon for a while however, maybe they felt they did not have a choice but to respond in this way.

Web Profits are trying to generate revenue by associating themselves the SLSA without consent. SLSA are within thier rights. Copyright 101.

The following are registered trademarks of SLSA:
– Their logo
– The words:
‘Lifesaver’; ‘Swim between the Flags’; ‘Life of the Beach’.
– Tangibles:
The Red and Yellow Cap; the Red
and Yellow Flag; Lifesaver Patrol
Uniforms; Lifeguard Uniforms.

@Graham et al. – you may want to educate yourself about IP law. It’s pretty straight forward and you are entirely and completely wrong. Try putting a Red Cross on your website or in your TVC if you want to receive the blunt end of IP and International Law.

It is entirely right and appropriate for SLSA to defend their registered trademarks if they see fit. It is not petty, it is universal and they are obliged to defend their IP in order to prevent a usage precedent being set to the detriment of their members and sponsors.

Did they ask Zara, Woolworth’s and Cotton On for their permission?

If you can’t beat SLSA, join em. Is that what DHL did?

Re post below. If I am at a swimming pool, in the country, am I allowed to shriek at the top of my voice: “somebody is having trouble in the pool, fetch the lifeguides!”

Or should it be: “pool attendants!” ????????

oops – here is the post: http://www.sls.com.au/content/.....-lifeguard

What a pile of utter utter crap, what a terrible idea. Regarding the IP yes the SLSA are right to have a moan about this as by association this company is devaluing the hard work the SLSA do for the community.

I don’t know if anyone’s already made this point but SLSA probably rely on corporate sponsorship to fund much of their organisation. If they didn’t make objections to adverts associating with SLSA without permission, they may jearpodise those relationships and potentially lose out on revenue.

What surprises me is that Web Profits or their agency didn’t know or think of this before putting the ad together. I know SOH object to any use of the Opera House in advertising campaigns without association.

Interesting link Bondage…

But how is it possible for anyone, charity or otherwise, to claim ownership of a commonly used term like ‘lifeguard’? Or a colour, as Cadbury have done? Or a number, like Channel 7?

I understand that brand protection in the modern business world is important, but we’ve had ‘lifeguards’ in our vernacular, I’m guessing, for a hundred years or so – it’s a bit late to be claiming ownership in 2011.

Similarly, Apple complained about the new Woolworths’ logo. Given that Woolworths actually sells fruit I would have thought that their use of a completely different stylised apple that in no way resembles that of the computer manufacturer in their logo would have been fair play.

These examples may well be the law, but I think the law needs to change.

The ad is such a pile of shite. You want me to trust you with my brand???? You can’t even look after your own judging by this steaming pile. SLSA have every right to dis-associate themselves from this amature bullshit. I’ve seen home porn with more class.

Poor ad – bad idea, even worse execution.
If Cadbury can claim to own purple, then surely a NFP can exercise rights to it’s colours and outfits? Agree entirely with Steve L – SLSA have the right to disassociate and reveal this cheap shot for what it is

@Adam P – If IP law has passed you by, then do educate yourself:

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

Just because it’s law, doesn’t necessarily make it right. When companies can stifle non-related competitors from running a legitimate business operation because the law says they ‘own’ a number, a colour or a common word then there are problems with the system that needs addressing.

Unfortunately IP law makes a few people a lot of money so I guess that won’t be happening any time soon.

@Adam – so, you reckon I should be able to use someone’s trademark to explicitly promote my own business? Potentially creating confusion and detriment to the appropriated brand?

With them having no recourse?

No matter what the impact of that promotion on my trademark’s prestige and reputation?

Do you have any clue about brand, marketing and sponsorship value?

No AdGrunt – that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that you shouldn’t be able to trademark common everyday things like colours and numbers in the first place – big difference.

Look at what happened when a US company was granted ownership of the commonly used term “Ugg Boot”, which was a long held generic name for the sheepskin boot. While local manufacturers were eventually able to defeat the claim, at least here in Australia, many producers went to the wall in the process.

As you probably well know there are unfortunately many more examples of over-reaching IP law.

When our common language and culture become “owned” by private interests, we all lose.

Btw. SLSA has life-savers, whilst the professionals are life-guards – there is a big difference.

Ah right, Adam – so you still don’t understand the concept of IP, classifications, etc. apparently.

Read the IP Australia website.

Educate yourself around the concept of IP – what it is and isn’t.

Educate yourself around the industry classifications (and why they aren’t registering everyday things willy-nilly)

Educate yourself why, for precisely the reason you point out with UGGs, that IP law is very necessary (and very cheap to do)

Finally, have a play with ATMOSS and educate yourself about exactly what and how SLSA and others have registered.

Then you might not make silly points.

AdGrunt, explain to me how one company registering the word ‘ugg’ could have protected a large number of different manufactures from a lawsuit? It was the fact that the trademark should have never been granted in the first place that saved what was left of the industry in Australia after the American firm lost their case locally and went home – but not before sending a few of their Aussie competitors broke first.

Imagine if Ford, for example, were given the trademark to the word ‘car’. That’s essentually what happened in the Ugg Boot case. Ugg was never a brand name, it was a type of boot.

As someone who has received threats from Channel Seven’s lawyers because my website ‘Next Seven Days’ had the number ‘seven’ in the title, (http://www.nextsevendays.com.au thanks for asking) and having gone through months of unneccessary ‘negotations’ to placate them, I can assure you the existing IP laws are there to be abused.

I’m not against IP and I’m not against companies protecting their brands and trademarks, I’m only against IP law being used to restrict the use of common, everyday words, phrases, numbers, etc.

If you want to call your company, say, ‘Apple’ then fine, but that shouldn’t give you the right to threaten a fruit retailer for using an apple (and a very different looking apple at that) in their logo.

However I do chuckle every time I drive past a local burger shop called “Hungry Macs” – now that’s just asking for trouble…

So… the image of a surf lifesaver (amongst other things) is now a brand?? …..being cashed in on by the governing organisation? Sort of exploits the thousands of volunteers who actually do the work and risk their lives for the community doesn’t it?

@Adam – you’re being economical with the truth. I can see why Apple would have a chat about the Woolies logo, just in case Woolies had ideas about say, creating a Woolies Everyday Mobile smartphone which had a stylised apple on it…

@The Hoff – imagine if I decided to set up my own AdGrunt Surf Life Saving Emporium, selling caps, shirts, shorts, swimmers and assorted yellow and red paraphernalia in Bondi, replicating that of SLSA for my own gain. Actually, this is so obvious I can’t be bothered to continue. Join the dots yourself with crayon.

@AdGrunt, economical with the truth? How so?

Apple has a long history of trying to stop anyone from using any apple-type-fruit-related logo no matter what the business, and I’ve had a fun 10 minutes Googling them. Most of the stories I found were even more ridiculous than the Woolies one. The adult store cleverly using an apple (as in ‘the forbidden fruit’…) in their logo is particularly funny. Unless Apple is planning a range of sex toys, then, apart from battery use, there’s not exactly much of a cross-over. [and if they were, I’d imagine the iButtPlug would probably be proprietary…]

The Woolworths logo in no way resembles the Apple computer logo, even though it’s based on the same piece of fruit, which is a product they actually sell and have been selling since Mr Woolsworth opened the door on the first store way back in the Middle Ages. There is no intent whatsoever on Woolworth’s behalf to ‘cash-in’ on the Apple brand, and a reasonable person would have no trouble separating the two.

What other iconic grocery item could Woolies use for a logo – a bog-roll?

Even if Woolworths decided to start selling your Everyday smart phone, the average consumer could easily spot the difference because you’d no doubt be able to make actual phone calls with it. (Sorry – just been through a frustrating time with Apple over an iPhone that their software update screwed… Thanks Steve).

On the other hand, a Coles smart phone must be stopped at any cost – the ring-tone would drive people insane…

Adgrunt your last example is ridiculous and you are taking the concept of IP protection to the extreme.

We need to remember that all that Web Profits did was create an ad that featured a life-guard! The same execution could have been done with police- “bad websites are criminal”, with firemen – “bad websites are burning your profits”, with paramedics – it’s too early to think of a corny pun for this one.

How many times have firemen been used in ads? Or doctors? Or police and the familiar white and blue uniforms? But you won’t see criticism of their use especially out of marketing circles. Why? Because public opinion would say stop being petty and get back to what the public pays you to do – save lives.

Tim – I find it ironic that your attempt to bring justice to SLSA by fueling this non story will in turn do more damage to their reputation than the Web Profits ad would have ever done. This thread has created some scathing comments about the SLSA that will remain for corporate sponsors to see.

How different would this thread had been, and our opinion of the SLSA, if they had come back with a tongue in-cheek response like: “we hope he was a fully trained lifesaver but it shows that our well trained and dedicated SLSA volunteers have talents that reach far beyond the water. We have not had any contact with Web Profits. ” Then contact Web profits separately and turn them into a corporate sponsor.

It’s simple, everyone’s happy, and @adgrunt and @Adam wouldn’t be giving themselves aneurisms.

Ibutt what Adam?
– Would that logo be an apple or a ram?

If someone trademarked the word “pale” would that cover bucket and light colored?

@Adam – I entertained your lack of IP law understanding for a while but it’s now embarrassing. I gave you a really, really good hint about what the Woolies / Apple conversations were about, but you choose to make up fatuous, unrelated scenarios. Read the IP website and educate yourself before further embarrassment.

I can entirely see why Seven would have had a sniff around your efforts considering your logo and registration. I notice you’ve withdrawn you own trade mark registration lodged in 2009. This means I could set up a second-string listings site called the same and you’d have almost no recourse. If I’d already entered into an agreement to use the Seven Network name, you’d be royally screwed. It’s about being a clever businessman instead of a hapless whinging victim.

@Dave – similarly, if you have no grasp of the situation at hand, then using absurd examples simply embarrasses you as well. I can’t think of any ads where a policeman or fireman is the main character endorsing a product, can you? They may be plot colour or touches of realism, but I’ve never seen them appear to actively endorse anything except public safety messages. Doctors and dentists are also restricted, but as they are not part of an organisation per se, subject to different rules.

Once again, SLSA are doing entirely the right thing here, both legally, ethically and morally.

Web Profits should engage a TV production house that have a clue. A creative agency wouldn’t go amiss either.

@Dave how about “your website is flatlining and needs to be brought back to life” for paramedics?

hang on, lifesavers do that too, is that an infringement?

That was always going to happen – SLSA are right to protect their corporate image. I surprised by the negative comments here on their actions as I would have thought that most would understand the power of brands. But perhaps not…

@Rob – The irony of you making that point to Adam, of all people in this conversation, about a website flatlining, is certainly not lost on me. 😉

After mUmbrella referred the matter to SLSA I had a good, amicable conversation with the SLSA. At their request, I’ve agreed to take this video down which will be done shortly. We support the SLSA in all they do and this video was meant to be a little fun, highlighting a competition for SMEs.
Paul Sprokkreeff
Managing Director
Web Profits

Adgrunt – again you have no clue.

In the Web Profits ad, they were not using a lifesaver to endorse the product. They were using a lifesaver as a character. There’s a big difference. If they had a lifesaver standing there saying ‘Web Profits just saved my website’ then I would take your point.

But it sounds like you just have an unrelated gripe with Web Profits that you’re trying to hammer home. Take the same advice as SLSA and get over it.

@rob – yes you might have to watch that one there might be some brand infringement.

And @Adgrunt, @Rob was making that point to me not to Adam, read his comment. Is this a common habit of yours to take whatever meaning suits you best? If you work in advertising / media, you should really be careful of that……

Anyone know how much the settlement between Apple and The Beatles was?

JG – which one?

AdGrunt – You’re obviously a legend in your own mind, but your constant personal attacks on people in this forum tells us a lot about you. Perhaps you could share with us some of your accomplishments so we too can bask in the glow of your magnificence? Of course, that could mean you might have to crawl out from behind that cowardly pseudonym…

Your point that Ch7, or others, can crush me at any moment is exactly the issue being raised here – a corporation being granted ownership of a common, everyday word, or in this case a number, and blocking all unrelated businesses from using it.

Once again, you argue one thing, yet prove another. Keep trying – you will land a valid point one day.

Adam,

This article is about SLSA and IP.

You chose to regale us about your sad, sorry, story. I didn’t.

You chose not to educate yourself about IP law before making critical business chocies. I didn’t. SLSA did.

Take a tissue and a toughen-up pill.

As noted before, I choose anonymity precisely to neuter ad hominem discussion.

Oiii! Who just neutered me? That hurt!

@Paul Sprokkreeff – that is a shame you had to back down. It would have been good to see this hit the mainstream media for some more discussion about SLSA. I think the public need to know more about their tactics and understand just how much money is spent by them on corporate IP lawyers, underhanded tactics, and generally not being a very responsible not for profit in a modern society.

@DJ, why are SLSA’s tactics “underhanded”? They have owned the red and yellow cap IP from before most of us were born! They have a right to stop organisations using their IP and in this case, cheapening their brand. Plus, people might interpret this as a direct link to SLSA and the quality of their website.

In the UK the colours are red and yellow too for their surf lifesavers. Do they wear the caps? Who bagged the colours first? The Poms or Ozzies?

Do the Poms have a copywrite on their colours?

How does it work with other companies who have these colours?
DHL, Sherrin, Ferrari, Macca’s, Mastercard, Shell, Red and Yellow… Any issues with surf lifesaving, or is it just the cap that is the issue?