ARTICLE
9 July 2025

The Battle Of The Fast Food Adverts: Chicken Licken vs. KFC

E
ENS

Contributor

ENS is an independent law firm with over 200 years of experience. The firm has over 600 practitioners in 14 offices on the continent, in Ghana, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.
In the ever-competitive world of fast food, brand identity and creative marketing are vital. In a recent dispute, Chicken Licken took legal action against KFC, claiming the fast-food giant's "All Star Box" advertisement copied two...
South Africa Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

In the ever-competitive world of fast food, brand identity and creative marketing are vital. In a recent dispute, Chicken Licken took legal action against KFC, claiming the fast-food giant's "All Star Box" advertisement copied two of their iconic characters.

Background

Chicken Licken is known for its memorable characters, like Sbu, the science teacher who's always sneaking off for Hotwings, and David "Legs of Thunder" Mgijimi, who fronts the Family Full House Meal ads. These characters have become central to Chicken Licken's brand identity.

KFC's ad featured two characters that have been alleged to closely resemble Sbu and Mgijimi. While the KFC ad was meant to parody the scene of a protagonist enjoying a meal while surrounded by clones, Chicken Licken felt that KFC was imitating its characters and leveraging its brand equity to promote its own products.

The dispute

Chicken Licken argued that KFC's ad didn't just use similar characters but directly copied theirs, which could confuse customers and harm Chicken Licken's brand. KFC defended the ad as a harmless parody, meant to entertain and not to mimic.

However, after reviewing the case, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) ruled in favour of Chicken Licken. The Board determined that the characters were clearly recognisable and had been intentionally used, which went beyond the bounds of parody and into the territory of imitation.

The ruling

The ARB's decision stated that KFC's use of Chicken Licken's characters was a violation of the advertising code. The ad was found to be an improper use of another company's brand equity, leading to its immediate withdrawal from all platforms.

Key takeaways:

While parody is a valid defence, it's crucial to be mindful of where parody ends and imitation begins. This case serves as a reminder that borrowing too heavily from a competitor's branding can lead to legal consequences, even if the intent is to entertain. It's a delicate balance between drawing inspiration and crossing into infringement.

This case shows how brand identity can be a powerful tool for marketing, but it also requires careful handling to avoid stepping on competitors' toes.

It is always recommended to engage Intellectual Property and brand experts to protect your brand's unique identity and avoid potential legal pitfalls. Get in touch with the team below.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More