'That isn't Kevin Butler', Bridgestone claims

[Kynes]

Max King of the Wild said:

Kynes said:

Max King of the Wild said:

Pavolink said:

Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.

you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed

If they have an active exclusivity clause, why they use a trademark reason to sue him? Wouldn't they use that exclusivity clause?

"

On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed against both Bridgestone and Lambert's company Wildcat Creek.

The American arm of PlayStation said that the lawsuit claims are "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

"

Huh...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

 

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79-489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 6, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch.22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Are they really using the false advertising card?