"Section II of the Code of Advertising Standards (ASA Code) sets out the general principles to which all advertisements must conform. Among other things, the ASA Code prohibits advertisers from copying an existing advertisement in a manner that is recognisable or clearly evokes the existing concept of the prior advertisement, as well as from taking advantage of another party's advertising goodwill arising from an advertising campaign.
"Any person whose rights have been infringed in any of these ways can approach the ASA for certain forms of relief. If a ruling was made against an advertiser following a complaint, that advertiser must adhere to the ruling and it is the complainant's responsibility to monitor whether or not the ruling is adhered to and carried into effect. There are time lines laid down in the ASA Code for the withdrawal of offending advertising and the periods are dependent on the type of advertising.
"Nando's met its match this time however. Santam, instead of engaging Nando's in potentially costly litigation, which could be even more costly to its reputation, struck back with its own advertisement. In its comeback, a Ben Kingsley lookalike appears to have just seen Nando's' version of its ad.
"According to this 'Kingsley', Santam is flattered that Nando's has copied its advertising and is therefore willing to overlook the indiscretion and accept a truce if it is willing to accept a challenge. The challenge called for a large, free order to the Johannesburg Children's Home to be delivered before 4pm on Thursday 26 April 2012. 'Kingsley' seemed certain that Nando's would rise to the challenge, unless they were "chicken", says Greef.
True to form, Nando's rose to the challenge, topping it all by agreeing to deliver a meal and to provide the children from the home with a meal once a month for a year.
"This is an example of two corporate giants who decided to come to an amicable truce rather than fighting a public war and benefiting a very deserving group in the process," concludes Greef.
