The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has upheld a complaint from Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd, known for its Chicken Licken brand, concerning an advertisement released by KFC (Pty) Ltd.
The complaint was triggered by a KFC advertisement that featured characters appearing to be clones of the well-known Chicken Licken figures, “Sbu” and “David ‘Legs of Thunder’ Mgijimi.”
The advertisement, released on 13 May 2025 on KFC’s official YouTube account, saw a male protagonist enjoying the KFC “All Star Box” and humorously lamenting that he would need clones to finish so much food. The spot featured male customers who, when questioned by a KFC employee, chose to order KFC instead of Chicken Licken, raising immediate concerns of disparagement.
Chicken Licken argued that the similarities were not coincidental, asserting that KFC’s ad was clearly an attempt to exploit their longstanding advertising goodwill associated with Sbu and David. In their submission, Chicken Licken stated, “The advertiser has set out, not only to exploit the goodwill and recognition that the two characters enjoy amongst consumers to its advantage but, also, to disparage the complainant’s products.”
This is far from the first skirmish between the two brands. Chicken Licken, with two iconic advertisements, “I am Sbu” and “Dave ‘Legs of Thunder’ Mgijimi”, has established a significant cultural foothold in South Africa. These campaigns have not only garnered widespread acclaim but also created characters that resonate deeply with their audience, contributing to their advertising goodwill.
Implications for brand identity and competitive advertising
The ARB’s decision was influenced by several critical factors, chiefly the recognisability of the characters and the extent of exposure both brands have received in the South African market. The directorate clearly stated that there was “no doubt that the characters used in the advertiser’s commercial are intended to be the characters that appear in the complainant’s advertising.” This assertion further emphasised that the implication of parody set forth by KFC in their defense could not stand as a justification under the ARB guidelines.
It was also pointed out that the advertisements’ focus on “being salty”, a colloquial term meaning to feel bitter or annoyed, was misinterpreted by KFC, with Chicken Licken claiming that it could potentially disparage their brand. The phrase was leveraged merely as a clever wordplay but failed to address the underlying implications of a direct rivalry that could confuse customers. KFC’s response maintained that there was no direct reference to Chicken Licken in the advertisement, asserting that it focused primarily on the “All Star Box” offering.
Legal precedents and future industry considerations
In delivering the finding, the ARB took a firm stance on imitation in advertising, as outlined in Clause 9 of the advertising code. The directorate concluded that the use of the cloned characters had substantially diluted the advertising value of Chicken Licken’s original work and had the potential to significantly impact its recognition in an already competitive market.
Industry takeaways
With this ruling, KFC has been instructed to withdraw the controversial advertisement immediately, serving as a reminder to advertisers in South Africa of the fine line between creativity and infringement.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
