'That isn't Kevin Butler', Bridgestone claims

[Kynes]

deskpro2k3 said:

Kynes said:

deskpro2k3 said:

Kynes said:

deskpro2k3 said:

I have to agree with Turkish here.
You may hate me and disagree all you like but this is how I see it.

Take this into consideration. I'll explain it as simple as possible. A well known coca-cola mascot wearing a nike logo is seen promoting a nike commercial that is also giving away free pepsi with every purchase.

For coca-cola that is like a low blow.

An actor is not a mascot. You can't trademark an actor.

Last time I checked a mascot is a representative symbol. He is an actor, and mascot.

Sony can't trademark his look and his acting style, it's absurd. Imagine the implications this would have for every actor that makes an ad.

there is nothing wrong with him acting in commercials. the only problem here is that it was with a wii, and everyone's first reaction was "that is kevin butler" and not jerry lambert. lol

So what, if there is not a non-compete clause, he can do whatever he wants. He's Jerry Lambert, not a mascot. If Sony wanted him outside ads, Sony should have paid him to keep an exclusivity contract in relation to videogames. They want him outside this type of ads, without paying him any dime.