By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 09 October 2012
Edit Thread
kowenicki said:
pokoko said:
Under the Lanham Act, I think Sony has something of a case. Clearly damage was done to their brand. They will have no problem finding evidence of that with all the articles and forum posts that sprung up after the commercials aired.

Lambert, by holding a video-game controller, associates himself with video-game consoles. Can anyone deny that? Is there anyone who saw the advertisement and did not chuckle or point? Honestly? Then damage was done when the association was made.

I think the important part of the argument is going to be whether or not Wildcat Creek or Bridgestone knew what they were doing when they had Lambert playing a Wii and if it was an intended reference. If it was done to intentionally spice up the commercial then it's pretty obviously a "false or misleading statement". Personally, I have little doubt that Lambert, at least, knew what he was doing, and that Wildcat Creek was making a conscious joke at the expense of Lambert's previous employer.

"Clearly damage was done to their brand" Are you serious!? I'd love you to quantify that for me. A load of fanboy irrational rants bragging or crying because the bloke that played the now irritating and pointless KB isn't exactly pristine evidence is it.  If their opinions mattered then the world would be fucked.

This action is what's doing harm to their brand. Easily proven (quote your own logic back at you), you only have to look at all the forums and posts since this action was brought.

Fact is, it had already blown over, nobody cared, the ad was forgotten.

Sony have dug an enormous hole and gleefully jumped into it.

An enormous hole?  What are you talking about?  I thought irrational rants from fanboys didn't matter?

Regardless, I'm talking about brand damage from a legal perspective, not whether or not the anti-Sony crowd at VGChartz hates Sony even more now than they did before.

That brand damage was done among Sony's primary audience seems pretty obvious.  I don't believe they will have trouble proving that.   As I said, the only trouble they will have is proving that it was intentional, which is the other part of the equation under the Lanham Act.  Will they be able to do that?  I don't know.  Will it go that far?  Probably not.

What surprises me somewhat is that there is hate for Sony for this when Microsoft would almost certainly take legal action in the same situation and possibly Nintendo as well.  They've all shown that they will use legal pressure to get their way, just like every other successful corporation in the world.