It sounds like Sony is going the trademark route as their approach to enforcing something that would otherwise be upheld under a non compete clause. The presence of the advertisement and trademark in question in other states and countries is relevant. The lawsuit could well be taken up in a different location if need be, but using trademark law makes it viable in California. There is an exceptiin to non compete but only if the person/entity is a shareholder in Sony. Anway, Sony has plenty of grounds to pusue thus whether anyone thinks it is right to or not, which is not the same as the ability to levi a case. People seem really quick to jump on Sony, but this is a defensive reaction to a potential harmful situation to one of their brands, not your opinion on how harmful it is or how harmful in comparison to "bad press" by filing a suit.
Sony hires lawyers to defend their image, to not take action would horrible as well. Maybe further ads were in future promotions between Bridgestone and Nintendo, by the way the ad itself is for a tire company but the promotion was with Nintendo so don't think it isn't liable or relevant to the suit. By filing a suit they have so far accomplished the removal of the person in question from the ad for the time being and have undoubtable entered in bargaining with Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek. At the very least an agreement to not cause confrontation with Sony will be reached. Sony could have done this without filing a lawsuit but this is how you engage things in business and not doing so first puts you at risk for on going related "damages" and ultimately ends up with a lawsuit regardless.
This stuff happens all the time, this is a by the book reaction. Sony isn't evil. It's a bad thing to think that and you should feel bad.
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(
