- The ad in question is for V17 Pro, featuring an amusement park actor Aamir Khan and a son. While an interim order was passed by the Bombay High Court last week, asking Vivo to deposit Rs 1 crore or provide a bank guarantee, the matter is far from over.
- Vivo’s Dentsu Impact ad agency, which carried out the campaign, dismissed the notion of raising Brand David.
Issues of scam advertising, plagiarism, and blatant copying were raised on ad award shows frequently. Yet in what will be the first instance of the matter going outside business fora, ad agency Brand David, part of the WPP-owned Ogilvy group, took smartphone manufacturer Vivo to court over a campaign that it says resembles a piece of work that it had previously delivered to the client.
The ad in question is for V17 Pro, featuring an amusement park actor Aamir Khan and a son. While an interim order was passed by the Bombay High Court last week, asking Vivo to deposit Rs 1 crore or provide a bank guarantee, the matter is far from over.
The next hearing will take place on 22 November. Nonetheless, following charges of plagiarism and copyright infringement against it, the ad was not taken out of the air. Sources say the matter is disputed by Vivo.
“The principles of Vivo are based on strong moral and contractual foundations. We pay a great deal of attention to our jobs. The matter is sub judice and we’re going to wait until the law takes its course, “said a Vivo spokesman when contacted.
Vivo’s Dentsu Impact ad agency, which carried out the campaign, dismissed the notion of raising Brand David. “We have absolutely no reason to resort to plagiarism of any kind because in our company we have no lack of talent. What we have produced is our original work entirely, and we have always kept it before the court. We do not wish to comment further on the matter, as it is still pending before the tribunal.
Source- YouTube
“In the case of Brand David, Vivo had called for a pitch for his smartphone V15 in October last year, where the former had expressed the idea of a campaign featuring an amusement park, the interim order, dated October 15, passed by BP Colabawalla, says.
Although Vivo did not engage Brand David’s services after the pitch, the latter, as the order acknowledged, was “shocked and surprised” to see another company in September launching a similar campaign for’ Vivo V17 Pro.’ “An infringement of copyright is the entire execution of the impugned advertising or at least its very nature,” the order said. Vivo, on the other hand, argued that, according to the decision, there was no copyright infringement.
