Picnic, a chain of grocery stores, has put himself in the spotlight in one strike with parody of a competitor’s commercial starring popular formula 1 driver Max Verstappen. As hoped and desired, the campaign went viral. The fact that this infringes upon Max's portrait rights only increased the effect. For a normal ad campaign to achieve similar impact the costs would be ten-fold. Because Max has a convertible popularity, a lawsuit followed in which he demanded 450,000 euros compensation.

Can you free-ride on the wave of publicity surrounding the World Cup as a company? In principle you can, as long as this is not in conflict with any statutory regulations and no third party’s rights are infringed upon. But, taking into account the large financial interests, FIFA is doing everything possible to keep the goodwill of the World Cup exclusively for its sponsors. That is why FIFA has again registered a huge number of new trademarks (including RUSSIA 2018) and designs. Better not use these (nor variations on them) and do not offer tickets.

Advertising is legally protected by the constitutional right, freedom of speech. However, can this freedom be limited if certain advertising is harmful or insulting to certain religious groups? This question arises regarding the campaign of the Lithuanian clothing company, Sekmadienis. On the posters there is a man accompanied with the text: “Jesus, what a trousers!”, another poster shows a woman with a bead and the text “Maria, what a dress!” and on the last one Jesus and Maria together with the text: “Jesus Maria, what are you wearing!”