The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled in favour of Chicken Licken in a high-profile complaint against KFC, finding that KFC’s recent All Star Box advertisement imitated distinctive characters from Chicken Licken’s popular campaigns.
KFC has since withdrawn the advert.
Centre of the dispute
At the centre of the dispute were two fictional characters — Sbu, the science teacher who builds a robot clone of himself to sneak off for Chicken Licken Hotwings, and David “Legs of Thunder” Mgijimi, the family pride and racing legend who fronts the brand’s Family Full House Meal ad. Chicken Licken argued that KFC’s commercial intentionally mimicked these characters, leveraging their recognisability and the advertising goodwill they’ve built over years of exposure.
The KFC advert, released in May 2025 (now removed from YouTube), features a protagonist enjoying the All Star Box, soon joined by two clones. Enter two other men — clear nods to Sbu and Mgijimi — who admire the scene, are asked if they’re “done being salty”, and then switch allegiances by ordering KFC’s meal themselves.
Chicken Licken called this a deliberate attempt to trade on its creativity, claiming that KFC was using familiar characters to mock its brand while promoting its own offering. They pointed out that the ad would be meaningless if viewers didn’t recognise the characters — proving that KFC was relying on Chicken Licken’s cultural footprint to make its message land.
In response, KFC admitted to referencing the characters but argued that the ad was simply a parody, designed to amuse rather than mislead or imitate. They also insisted that the term “salty” was used in its slang context — meaning bitter or resentful — not as a jab at the flavour of Chicken Licken’s food.
Clearly recognisable
The ARB disagreed. In its decision, the Board found that the characters were clearly recognisable and intentionally used, noting that Sbu and Mgijimi are central to Chicken Licken’s brand identity and advertising success.
While the Board acknowledged that parody can be a valid defence in cases of goodwill exploitation, it made it clear that parody does not apply to imitation. Allowing otherwise, the ARB warned, would open the floodgates to copycat advertising under the guise of humour.
Importantly, because the ruling was made based on imitation (Clause 9 of Section II of the Code), the ARB found it unnecessary to consider the additional claims of disparagement and exploitation of goodwill.
